My first thought was just : "could some information that is currently placed
in the docstring be more useful is written differently, while still
complying with the DRY principle (that is, the parts that are extracted from
the current docstring should still be available in a useful form to the
clien
On Feb 26, 5:55 am, Laurent PETIT wrote:
> While not checking types at compile time, it seems to me that a lot of
> clojure code still needs in the docstring some sort of "preconditions
> warnings".
Do you mean something like "Contract Programming," as in e.g., the
Eiffel programming language?
Hello,
While not checking types at compile time, it seems to me that a lot of
clojure code still needs in the docstring some sort of "preconditions
warnings".
For example, that you can't pass a first argument if it cannot be callable
as a function, or if it cannot succeed the (seq) test ...
Could
