Probably we just didn't consider that! It does seem better. Robby
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Asumu Takikawa <as...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > On 2013-07-25 12:55:25 -0500, Robby Findler wrote: > > I think the issue is that the tail guarantee can't be met if there > are two > > handles (one won't be in tail position wrt to the sync). > > I understand. I guess what I'm asking is that there seem to be two > reasonable choices for the semantics here: > > (1) Do not allow an event that is created as a handle event to > ever have two handlers. > > (2) If an event ever ends up having two handlers, that's okay, but > it will not respond #t to `handle-evt?`. > > My question boils down to "why semantics (1) and not (2)?" > > (though it doesn't matter much if we just choose not to reflect > this in the type system, but that means you will sometimes > get a contract error saying "expected (not/c handle-evt?) but ...") > > Cheers, > Asumu >
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
