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
[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
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
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 tha
Probably we just didn't consider that! It does seem better.
Robby
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Asumu Takikawa 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
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 h
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).
Robby
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I had a question about `handle-evt` and synchronizable events in
> general. I was tryi
PS: this distinction seems like something not worth reflecting in the type
system.
Robby
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:55 PM, 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).
>
> Robby
>
>
Hi all,
I had a question about `handle-evt` and synchronizable events in
general. I was trying to understand the documentation and only have a
partial idea of the motivation behind `handle-evt` and the contracts of
`handle-evt` and `wrap-evt`.
In particular, what is the motivation for disallowing
9 matches
Mail list logo
