This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
2017-12-22
Channels
- # adventofcode (37)
- # beginners (74)
- # boot (2)
- # boot-dev (31)
- # cider (88)
- # clara (109)
- # cljs-dev (63)
- # clojure (96)
- # clojure-argentina (1)
- # clojure-czech (1)
- # clojure-dusseldorf (2)
- # clojure-france (2)
- # clojure-germany (3)
- # clojure-greece (2)
- # clojure-italy (5)
- # clojure-norway (1)
- # clojure-spain (1)
- # clojure-spec (25)
- # clojure-uk (46)
- # clojurescript (26)
- # cursive (19)
- # data-science (5)
- # docs (2)
- # duct (18)
- # editors (2)
- # emacs (3)
- # figwheel (2)
- # fulcro (29)
- # graphql (3)
- # hoplon (143)
- # juxt (7)
- # klipse (1)
- # leiningen (5)
- # lumo (1)
- # monads (1)
- # off-topic (23)
- # onyx (49)
- # powderkeg (6)
- # re-frame (4)
- # reagent (8)
- # ring (3)
- # shadow-cljs (24)
- # specter (70)
- # sql (1)
- # unrepl (96)
- # yada (3)
what’s the idiom for negating a spec? ie if i want to greedly parse excluding something
complement
?
Has anyone attempted to write code that determines the 'difference' between two specs yet? That this is possible to do for "vanilla" regular expressions was, I recall, mentioned as a motivating factor for spec to be include regex matching. (I realize, of course, that spec generalizes vanilla regex's in a way, with extra side conditions via and/or, such that it might not always be possible to apply those regex diff algorithms in those cases).
s/be include/be based on/
I don’t think it’s going to be efficient to do so without leveraging the guts of the regex spec impl
@cfleming I've seen it used. I prefer :_actual-name-of-thing-you-ignore both for keywords and symbols (documentations is hard to come by these days)