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: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
