It has exactly that (without the dynamic check). And no, I don't think so. On Friday, July 26, 2013, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> > [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: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev >
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
