Hi Alex,
Oh yeah I've seen `s/double-in` but as you point out that doesn't help
me if I want to :ret spec a function with similar semantics as remove (a
fn that transforms a seq given a predicate), which I find a very common
indeed. I'm only starting playing with clojure.spec (in fact i've only
spec'ed 2 fns so far) and I've not yet had to spec specifically a
double-precision number. I have had however the need to spec :any? as
::anything-but-NaN, in both my first 2 specs, so according to my
experience this is by no means a rare issue. In fact, looking at
clojure.core, most fns operate on seqs, and a good proportion of them
processes/transforms a coll according to a predicate/fn. This has
nothing to do with doubles or in fact numbers. We can only spec the
contents of the collection as `any?` right? anything more specific, and
the gen-surface area is reduced. So yeah it's great that we have
`s/double-in`, but ideally I'd also like a reliable way to say that the
output coll from a fn is equal to the input coll, while having specified
the contents of that coll with `any?`, and without having to jump
through hoops in the :ret spec. My workaround is actually working nicely
for me, and i can certainly live without NaNs in the tests, but it still
feels a bit hacky.
Thanks,
Dimitris
On 07/11/16 18:14, Alex Miller wrote:
Please also take a look at s/double-in, which allows you to exclude
NaN (and Infinity/-Infinity) as valid values.
(I realize this does not address the any? question, but that seems
like a rarer issue to me than cases where I'm explicitly spec'ing a
double but don't want to allow NaN.)
On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 11:37:08 AM UTC-6, Jim foo.bar wrote:
Hi all,
clojure.spec helped me realise that NaNs totally break [1]
equality (per
`clojure.core/=`). Even though in real production code this might
not be
an issue due to how infrequently one deals with NaNs, but during
gen-testing I've found them extremely annoying, and I've essentially
worked around this by spec-ing things I'd normally specify via
`any?`,
via `(s/and any? (complement double-NaN?))` instead. I have to do
this
for any spec, where in the :ret spec i need to be able to confirm
that
the input coll is equal to the output coll (e.g.
`clojure.core/remove`
returns the same coll it was passed in when nothing has been
removed),
which is a possibility in a lot of functions. Have other people
encountered this as well, and if yes, how are you guys dealing
with it?
Thanks in advance...
Kind regards,
Dimitris
[1]: (= [:a Double/NaN] [:a Double/NaN]) => false
--
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
<mailto:clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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.
