Frank Siebenlist <frank.siebenl...@gmail.com> writes: > My suggestion still stands: add more text to the doc-string of some of > the functions such that the user has a better understanding of what to > expect: no validation, nil, exception, expected parameter type, ???. > I'd be happy to suggest wording.
Agreed. This is only one instance of a number of cases that the user must hunt around on clojure.org for things that should be available in docstrings, which is unreasonable for a number of reasons. > Another option that may help us to use valid identifiers in our code > is to have a function like: (clojure.core/valid-name? a-str), which is > maintained by core (and not by us all writing some regex based on the > current specs on a web page). If you're just interested in what's round-trippable, that could be done with this: (apply = ((juxt read-string symbol) "symbol-name")) But something more formal wouldn't hurt either. -Phil -- 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
