On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 4:54:40 PM UTC-5, Leif wrote:
>
> Spec usage guide questions:
>
> There is a small typo in the 'Collections' section (pretend this is a
> question):
>
> (s/conform (s/coll-of number? #{} #{5 10 2}))
> ;; should be
> (s/conform (s/coll-of number? #{}) #{5 10 2})
>
>
Fixing...
>
> Is there a technical reason why the paths reported by 's/explain' for
> regex ops are incomplete? E.g., in the "A game of cards" section, I would
> expect:
>
> (s/explain ::game ...)
> At: [::players 0 ::hand 0 1] val: :banana fails spec: ::card predicate: suit?
> ;; but the real output is this, indices from regex matches missing
> At: [::players ::hand 1] val: :banana fails spec: ::card predicate: suit?
>
>
> It's fine here, but it could get harder to find the failure point in a
> larger data structure.
>
The paths refer to tags in the schemas, not keys in the map. However, this
has been asked about several times today and Rich has added support for a
:in clause that will track the key paths to master and that will be in
alpha2.
>
> Is there a way to write a map spec that contains *only* the required
> keyset? This is against the spirit of the 'composition' arguments in the
> Rationale, but sometimes I really want to pin down the exact data in a map,
> especially for data about to escape into the wild (e.g. return values of a
> web API).
>
Nothing built in, but it's easy enough to write that predicate yourself if
you need it.
> The behavior of 's/and' really surprised me (again, pretend this is a
> question). The conformed values propagating through is semantically weird
> when you have 'core/and' in mind. Also, if you have data keywords and spec
> keywords, it could get complicated to keep track of what's what in the
> later specs. More examples in the "Composing predicates" section, right
> when 's/and' in introduced, might take away the surprise and replace it
> with luxurious comfort.
>
I'll consider it.
> Is there a recommended way to introspect specs for our own purposes
> (coercion, code generation)? An interpreter on the output of 'describe'
> might work (although it's a little complicated for fn specs), but I wanted
> to know if you all had any thoughts or plans for the future here.
>
Could you give more details on what question you would like to ask?
>
> Thanks,
> Leif
>
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 1:04:45 PM UTC-4, Alex Miller wrote:
>>
>> Clojure 1.9.0-alpha1 is now available.
>>
>> Try it via
>> - Download:
>> https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/clojure/clojure/1.9.0-alpha1
>> - Leiningen: [org.clojure/clojure "1.8.0-alpha2"]
>>
>> 1.9.0-alpha1 includes the first release of clojure.spec
>> <http://clojure.org/about/spec>.
>>
>> A usage guide for spec is now available: http://clojure.org/guides/spec.
>>
>> Enjoy!
>> Alex
>>
>
--
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.
