My critique is not towards closed keysets but about being able to (s/keys :req [::some-kw]) without having defined the spec ::some-kw, but e.g. ::soem-kw instead. This can trip you up badly, and not at compile time. I'd be surprised if this never happened to you.
Regarding open maps and keysets I'm fine with them. However, I use select-keys after validating data over the wire. Would be nice if there were some "select-spec" for open specs. On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 5:03:01 AM UTC+2, Alex Miller wrote: > > > On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 12:30:57 PM UTC-5, Leon Grapenthin wrote: >> >> I second this from my experience, using spec quite extensively since its >> release. >> >> We already had some invalid data passing silently because of this. It can >> easily happen if you have a typo in the spec. >> >> Also we never experienced benefits from being able to not spec keys >> required in s/keys. It appears to be a pretty obsolete feature, making >> vulnerabilities more likely. >> > > It is more common to experience the negative effects of restricting key > sets as you evolve through versions, and in fact we have experienced on > virtually every consulting project we'd done including spec at Cognitect. > So I do not think it is at all obsolete. > > > -- 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 Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
