4 ms·

(spec/fdef clojure.core/range :args (spec/alt :infinite (spec/cat) :range-0 (spec/cat :end number?) :range (spec/cat

(spec/fdef clojure.core/range :args (spec/alt :infinite (spec/cat) :range-0 (spec/cat :end number?) :range (spec/cat :start number? :end number?) :step (spec/cat :start number? :end number? :step number?)) :ret #(instance? clojure.lang.Seqable %))```

georgewsinger 10y ago
Interesting. I don't know what to think. It's a lot to read. But in some ways adds more information than types (you can make reference to values). Maybe you could make it more concise with more definitions? For example: (def UnboundedInterval (spec/cat)) (def PositiveUnboundedInterval (spec/cat :end number?)) (def ClosedInterval (spec/cat :start number? :end number?)) (def StepClosedInterval (spec/cat :start number? :end number? :step number?)) (def SeqableInstance #(instance? clojure.lang.Seqable %)) And then: (spec/fdef clojure.core/range :args (spec/alt :infinite UnboundedInterval :range-0 PositiveUnboundedInterval :range ClosedInterval :step StepClosedInterval :ret SeqableInstance) Perhaps this would be non-idiomatic, and perhaps I'm trying to make this into something that looks like a static type annotation when it isn't.
- hcarvalhoalves 10y ago
  Looks sane, specially because you can (s/and ...) the specs so you should have reusable specs in some common namespace.
- catnaroek 10y ago
  > (you can make reference to values) Dependent types let you do just that as well. While theoretical computer scientists for the most part focus on dependently typed systems capable of expressing and proving any mathematical proposition (which obviously results in increased complexity), there exist more pragmatic variants of dependent types aimed at solving the everyday needs of programmers, with a minimum of annotation burden, see: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/liquidhaskell http://hackage.haskell.org/package/liquidhaskell

georgewsinger 10y ago

Interesting. I don't know what to think. It's a lot to read. But in some ways adds more information than types (you can make reference to values). Maybe you could make it more concise with more definitions? For example: (def UnboundedInterval (spec/cat)) (def PositiveUnboundedInterval (spec/cat :end number?)) (def ClosedInterval (spec/cat :start number? :end number?)) (def StepClosedInterval (spec/cat :start number? :end number? :step number?)) (def SeqableInstance #(instance? clojure.lang.Seqable %)) And then: (spec/fdef clojure.core/range :args (spec/alt :infinite UnboundedInterval :range-0 PositiveUnboundedInterval :range ClosedInterval :step StepClosedInterval :ret SeqableInstance) Perhaps this would be non-idiomatic, and perhaps I'm trying to make this into something that looks like a static type annotation when it isn't.

hcarvalhoalves 10y ago
Looks sane, specially because you can (s/and ...) the specs so you should have reusable specs in some common namespace.
catnaroek 10y ago
> (you can make reference to values) Dependent types let you do just that as well. While theoretical computer scientists for the most part focus on dependently typed systems capable of expressing and proving any mathematical proposition (which obviously results in increased complexity), there exist more pragmatic variants of dependent types aimed at solving the everyday needs of programmers, with a minimum of annotation burden, see: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/liquidhaskell http://hackage.haskell.org/package/liquidhaskell