Logged this at https://dev.clojure.org/jira/browse/CLJ-2266 with a patch.
On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 11:26:45 PM UTC-6, Alex Miller wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 11:11:27 PM UTC-6, Didier wrote:
>>
>> | One option is to use the non-conforming s/every instead of the
>> confor
On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 11:11:27 PM UTC-6, Didier wrote:
>
> | One option is to use the non-conforming s/every instead of the
> conforming s/coll-of
>
> Why isn't instrument just validating for all spec? Doesn't conform serve
> no purpose here?
>
Indeed, this could probably be changed
| One option is to use the non-conforming s/every instead of the conforming
s/coll-of
Why isn't instrument just validating for all spec? Doesn't conform serve no
purpose here?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group,
On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 4:16:00 PM UTC-6, Russell Mull wrote:
>
>
> This appears to be happening because the lazy sequence is actually
> realized *by* spec when instrumentation is on, but at that point checking
> is actually disabled with the st/with-instrument-disabled macro.
>
> A fe
