On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Jason Wolfe <ja...@w01fe.com> wrote: > > Outside of that, I can still potentially see the desire to specify > postconditions rather than preconditions (you'd rather see an error (not > (integer? "1")) than (throws? (odd? "1")), which will be the behavior when > the bug is fixed. We're thinking about whether it's worth the extra > complexity to support that, what are your thoughts? If you think it would > be valuable, please open another issue on github so we can track it -- > thanks. >
Postconditions are what I reached for intuitively, and so I suspect many other people will also try to figure them out. It "feels good" if one is anticipating a generator and knows about gen/such-that, for example. I haven't looked at the Schema generation API yet, but I'd like to not need to specify leaf generators (except perhaps for performance reasons). That said, s/both is both (ha!) awkwardly named (since it can take more than two) and not a mechanism I'm attached to. Perhaps there's another way? I'd be happy if there is a concise, recommended, well-documented way, even if (like gen/bind) I have to jump through a few mental hoops to figure out how to phrase it. -Jason -- 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.
