This maybe silly, but just in case: What if Racket waits on all previously created eventspaces at the end of each program (since I guess that's what it does on the main GUI eventspace already)? Apart from backward compatibility problems, would it be a bad idea?
Laurent On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > A few minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote: > > Michael Wilber kindly sent me the link: > > > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2012-April/051485.html > > (Ah, sorry, I thought that you knew where the discussion was...) > > > > and I think that this is not really a good argument for changing the > > default behavior. A keyword argument that says "create a new > > eventspace" seems okay, but the docs should explain that this is > > multi-threading, and if you were to invoke methods of the plot frame > > without first going to the new eventspace (via queue-callback or > > something like that), then you'll probably get bad behavior. > > Sounds like exactly what I'm asking for: a sensible default that works > naively, and if the new eventspace is really useful, then do that with > a non-default keyword. > > -- > ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: > http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
