That’s on the table for spec 2

But they are likely to be significantly different than spec 1

@alexmiller Could you please clarify: “That’s” == what exactly?

specs integrated into defn

ah, ok, just wanted to be sure that’s what you meant 🙂 very cool. looking forward to seeing what you folks come up with

Why is there no support for and/or inside of s/keys :opt ?

(s/keys :req-un [::a]
        :opt-un [(and ::b ::c)])

In my case, ::b and ::c are optional, but if anyone of them is there, the other has to be as well

Because optional things are ... optional

You’ll need to s/and another predicate if you have additional constraints

Hum.. its just more annoying, because the combinations to list out with s/and can quickly grow

but that's what I'll do for now

I guess I need s/or

s/or (s/keys :req-un [::a]) (s/keys :req-un [::a ::b ::c])

Hum... its a lot trickier then I thought

Or I'm tired

(s/or :one (s/keys :req-un [::a]) :two (s/keys :req-un [::a (and ::b ::c)])

{:a :b}

You could do something like this, which doesn't require you to list all possible optional combinations