Thanks Rich, for this and your work in general. After 15 years of working with Java, it has been a real joy to find clojure (let's face it, that pun alone is pure gold!).
I might try my hand at the macrology you describe as an exercise... everybody stand well back.... On Thursday, 26 May 2016 14:43:04 UTC+1, Rich Hickey wrote: > > If you name (register) your (sub)specs with s/def and you can reuse them > as much as you like. > > (s/def ::argi (s/cat :i integer?)) > (s/def ::fnii (s/fspec :args ::argi :ret integer?)) > (s/conform ::fnii +) > (s/valid? ::argi '(42)) > > However you are talking about calling ‘instrument’ so I don’t think you > are in the HOF case. So you shouldn’t be using fspec but fdef: > > (s/fdef fooi :args (s/cat :i integer?) :ret integer?) > > (defn fooi [i] > (let [spec (-> `fooi s/fn-specs :args)] > (assert (s/valid? spec (list i)) (s/explain-str spec (list i)))) > 42) > > (fooi "42") > user=> AssertionError Assert failed: In: [0] val: "42" fails at: [:i] > predicate: integer? > > Obviously some macrology could make this more succinct, as is being > discussed elsewhere. > > > On May 26, 2016, at 9:17 AM, Wesley Hall <wesle...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > spec is not a contract system. > > > > Forgive me for I am about to sin :). > > > > I have a little RPC framework that I use to do simple remoting between > clojurescript in the browser and ring based web services. I'm currently > using schema to validate arguments received from clients and return > appropriate exceptions upon non-conforming invocations. > > > > The idea of being able to perform generative testing against a > specification for these functions is really appealing but if I am using > generative testing to verify that my functions behave properly if invoked > as intended it does feel like there would be some benefit to ensuring that > the conditions under which the function has been tested are enforced at > runtime for those functions on the edges of my API. > > > > I'd definitely prefer a manual conformity check over instrumentation in > these cases, but it seems like an fspec cannot be used for this purpose > (from within the function itself). I'd rather not define my specs twice. > > > > Seems like I might be destined to make cheeky instrument calls after > each of these edge functions, in the same was the always-validate metadata > is used in schema. > > > > Do I have a desperate need to be convinced otherwise? :) > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Clojure" group. > > To post to this group, send email to clo...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:> > > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > clojure+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > > 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+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > > 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.
