Another possible option is using spec specs (CLJ-2112) to unform from a spec data form to a spec (but that would still need to be evaluated) - still very much a wip.
However, we are working on a spec update that will target some of this, so stay tuned for that. On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 5:14:34 PM UTC-6, Aaron Brooks wrote: > > I've found in several projects that I want to have families of specs that > have some shared structure but some differing structure. > > Consider a case where I have some, possibly nested, structure which in > some cases will have some type of place-holder values which will later be > replaced with actual values. I don't want a spec to have an 's/or at each > position that could have a place-holder since I expect the structure to be > populated with only place-holder values or only resolved values and want to > exclude a mix. > > Neither do I want to maintain two versions of the spec by hand. Some of > the structure is complex and would be a pain to keep the two in sync. > > This appears to leave two choices. > > I'd like to describe the spec and then walk the spec, generating the other > spec instance. Due to the macro-y nature of spec, I think this means eval > which makes this not cljc/cljs friendly for self-hosted ClojureScript. > > The alternative seems to be to build a set of macros that will generate > both forms of the specs. This is awkward since it requires the full spec to > be defined within the macro form and winds up being much more complex than > a walk-and-transform of one spec into another. > > What is the best practice for generating specs like this? Am I missing > something? > > I'm afraid the current macro-y, non-data-y implementation of > clojure.spec.alpha really renders certain usage patterns (say specs that > are derived from meta-specs) very awkward or inaccessible. I know spec > needs to capture symbols and forms but wish that was a ease interface on > top of a data oriented implementation that was first-class. > > Let me know if I'm missing something in how I'm thinking about this or > what my available options are. > > Thanks! > > -Aaron > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] 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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
