Hello everyone, On Thursday, 16 November 2017 23:29:56 UTC+1, John Newman wrote: > > [...] when we constrain maps in that closed way, aren't we creating some > new subtype of a map, with fundamentally different semantics? If you are > going to fully close a map, you might as well use a deftype and make a > custom object and not call it a map, right? >
Just to add my two cents, I've been following the discussion and this has been my thinking for quite some time. Is it not a valid argument? Having a validation mechanism pick only certain keys, or ensuring that keys in a map are specced, look as trivial to me than other data wrangling we do in Clojure. My (preliminary) conclusion in cases like this is to build validation tooling around spec, instead of using it directly. -- 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.
