My first thought was just : "could some information that is currently placed in the docstring be more useful is written differently, while still complying with the DRY principle (that is, the parts that are extracted from the current docstring should still be available in a useful form to the clients of your function/macro".
The evident think that can be very easily formalized in the docstrings is some sort of type restriction on the arguments. A generalization of this, though, is indeed what Eiffel offers as Design By Contract. Something like that is already present (I guess) as validators on refs, atoms and agents. -- Laurent 2009/2/26 Mark H. <mark.hoem...@gmail.com> > > On Feb 26, 5:55 am, Laurent PETIT <laurent.pe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > While not checking types at compile time, it seems to me that a lot of > > clojure code still needs in the docstring some sort of "preconditions > > warnings". > > Do you mean something like "Contract Programming," as in e.g., the > Eiffel programming language? > > mfh > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
