On 12 April 2011 22:04, Joost <jo...@zeekat.nl> wrote:
> For now, I think of the pretzel library as the lowest useful level of
> abstraction for input tests. And for low level abstractions, I prefer
> to place a higher value on correctness, extensibility, consistency and
> possibly even performance (in roughly that order) than ease of use
> from a direct programmer's stand point.
I think I agree.
> It might be better to put those predicates in a numeric
> namespace or library that doesn't address strings at all, maybe
> relying on a conversion layer somewhere if your input is really string-
> based, or maybe to have string-based counterparts relying on the
> numeric tests.
That's a good idea. Perhaps something like:
(defn from-string [f]
(comp f parse-number))
(from-string (in-range 1 10))
But with a better name than "from-string".
- James
--
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
