On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:28:12 AM UTC-6, Erik Assum wrote: > > FWIW, I’ve been using https://github.com/metosin/spec-tools > on a couple of projects lately, which helps nicely with > conformance and coercion. The main devs are very helpful on #ring-swagger > on the Clojurians slack. > > Alex, how does spec-tools measure up to your thoughts on > conformance/coercion? >
spec-tools combines specs for your desired *output* with a coercion function, making the spec of the actual data implicit. I feel like this conflates too many things and obscures the actual input data value, which is the same problem the original poster had. Also, spec-tools introduces the notion of "type". spec intentionally avoids creating a new vocabulary of special words like this and in all cases relies on predicates or things mapped to predicates instead. I'm not a fan of this approach and I don't like the idea in CLJ-2116 much either - I think it's pretty unlikely this is where we will end up. In general, I think a lot of the functionality in spec-tools either uses implementation internals that are almost certain to break as spec evolves or is at odds with the philosophies of spec as stated in https://clojure.org/about/spec (like the type vocabulary thing). I do see the problems driving this, and I agree there is a gap to be filled here though. -- 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.
