That makes sense to me. I'll look into changing `sync`. Thanks!
At Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:28:54 -0400, Jonathan Schuster wrote: > I'm writing a macro that expands into a use of sync on a number of > async-channels. In the context of the macro, it makes sense to have it wait > on zero channels - it means effectively the same thing as "go to sleep > forever", or (sync never-evt). > > However, sync requires it be passed at least one event. I can get around > this issue by just adding a never-evt to the argument list, but what's the > reason for the current behavior? It seems silly to disallow (sync) when > there's a seemingly obvious default behavior. ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
