Really great work. I am curious about a couple of things though.
One is the choice of names like s/*, s/+ and s/?. Is there a specific
reason they were chosen? They aren't self-explanatory. It's not
automatically clear that because they are in the clojure.spec namespace
they resemble regex equivalents. And even then you have to know the regex
meaning. Though I'm very familiar with regular expressions I find myself
have to make a mental switch each time I come across one of those names.
Especially because they don't appear inside a regular expression. Something
like s/one-or-more would hardly need any explanation and be much easier to
read.
Another thing I'm wondering about is if tools like Cursive/Cider will be
easily able to determine if there's a spec. In quite a few cases it's hard
to tell what arguments are expected, what a function returns or things like
that. If I'm not mistaken you declare your specs elsewhere, so when
browsing code you're unfamiliar with that information isn't directly
available to you. It would be extremely nice to be able to have the spec
optionally shown somewhere inline for example.
Something like this maybe:
(defn some-fn [*:spec-ns/name* n *:spec-ns/age* a]
.....) *=> :spec-ns/result*
--
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.
