Sometimes, there are relationships between different parts of data that need to be included in the spec. This can surely be done using "s/and" and a predicate but this way we lose granularity when it comes to the output of "s/explain" – we'll only ever see _that_ something is wrong but never where exactly the problem lies.
Specifically, one might be able to generate the spec for one part of the data from another. For example, there could be a section of variable definitions, plus a different one where those variables are used, and the second part could benefit from a specification restricting the value space for variable names. Which, in turn could be generated from the first part. Alternatively, this could be expressed as a specialisation of an existing spec, i.e. saying "The data conforms to spec A and, additionally (!), every value within conforming to spec B also conforms to a third one, C." (I also collected these thoughts in this Gist: https://gist.github.com/xsc/bd4c498dc516435c71d01b4fdd224e85) Is this, at all, in line with the ideas behind spec? IMO, it could be a powerful tool – my target use case being semantic validation of an AST where the AST's structure conforms to a spec bundled with the parser. Cheers, Yannick -- 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.
