[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
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,
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
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 ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu
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
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 as...@ccs.neu.edu wrote:
Hi all,
I had a question about `handle-evt` and synchronizable events in
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
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
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
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
9 matches
Mail list logo
