> > I like this feature a lot, but dislike the term enforce. IMO, it muddies > things and is much less clear than require. In my experience, the term > required is generally used to indicate fields that must be present. For > example, JSON schema uses that term. enforce gives me the sense that some > kind of validation policy is applied but does not describe what the > validation policy is. Does it enforce the type of values allowed for the > named fields? Does it enforce the fields are present? Does it enforce the > named fields are *not* present? Does enforce: [:percent] validate that > percent is between 1 and 100? > That's a very good point. I believe :require is better than :required (thanks for that) but I still believe the require/required connotation can be confusing. Also require may be a bit overloaded in Elixir (given the require special form and Code.require_file). Can you think of other options? :)
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elixir-lang-core" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elixir-lang-core/CAGnRm4LgoSQeBd9o7kZq-r%2BhU5XQA4p8x83b%2B77ejxh_bdi6%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
