It has exactly that (without the dynamic check). And no, I don't think so. On Friday, July 26, 2013, Matthias Felleisen wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> [Catching up] Does CML have anything even remotely comparable to handle-evt and does it assign a type distinction? -- Matthias On Jul 25, 2013, at 2:45 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote: > On 2013-07-25 12:36:32 -0600, Matthew Flatt wrote: >> My thought was that you should only use `handle-evt' if you need tail >> behavior for something like a loop. If you use `handle-evt' and you're >> not getting tail behavior (but `sync' continues on, anyway), then >> something has gone wrong --- and maybe it's better to get an error than >> have a slow leak that will be tricky to detect. > > I could see how that might be a better choice for debugging. Especially > since it seems that people don't check `handle-evt?` on events (which > you would need to do to ensure tail-behavior in semantics 2). > > In particular, there are zero uses of `handle-evt?` in the codebase > outside of tests. > > Since it's primarily a performance debugging feature, it seems OK to > ignore the distinction in Typed Racket and keep the current semantics. > > Thanks, > Asumu > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev</a> _________________________ Racket Developers list: <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev</a> </blockquote>