> > imho, you're asking spec to do more than it should here - it's not a magic > wand to wave at all validation problems. >
That's good to know. Note that, in regard to the problem stated above, clojure.spec does not fail its validation responsibilities – it can perfectly tell me that my data has semantic inconsistencies. Rather, it's failing at providing means to increase the usefulness/granularity of any validation errors it emits. you're asking spec to do more than it should here Can you elaborate? Where do, in this case, the responsibilities of clojure.spec end? Should clojure.spec only be used for structural validation (with [semantic] > validation being done explicitly in a second pass) or if > validation errors with low granularity are okay? -- 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.
