On 7 April 2011 20:03, Joost <jo...@zeekat.nl> wrote:
> Yup. I'm mostly in the same boat. That's why all the predicates I've
> produced for now are in the pretzel.strings namespace. I expect to end
> up with few non-string predicates, but those will have to go into
> pretzel.numbers or whatever make sense.
What about predicates that operate on numbers encoded as strings? e.g.
"1" or "4.2".
> For your specific example of (integer-string? "foo"), that should
> just return false. The idea - for strings - is that any kind of input
> string can be supplied, and the function should just test whether it
> conforms to some kind of formatting. The same logic should, I think,
> apply to functions operating on numbers and other types such as files,
> if there's a need for those kinds of predicates.
I think we differ a little in our end goals, then. I'm less concerned
about general use, and more concerned about generating good error
messages for form-data validation. For instance, with normal
predicates, one might get error messages like:
{:score ["is not present" "is not an integer" "is not between 1 and 10"]}
But in my view, it would be better to have a error message like:
{:score ["is not present"]}
Because if a value is blank, there's no point in telling the user it's
also not an integer or between a certain range. Also, one might have
integer fields that can be blank.
So I think Valip needs its own predicate library, but I can probably
factor out a lot of the general stuff to Pretzel (e.g. email-address?
integer? etc.)
- James
--
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
