What's the recommended location for function schema definition? Should it be on the same namespace as the function or in a separate namespace?

No strong opinions in malli for that. My favourites: 1. Inlined (the plumatic syntax) 2. just before the functions (`m/=>` is as long as defn , looks good

what do you think?

Someone reviewed my code that added m/=> for each and every function in the core namespace of a lib (around 10 functions) and he thought it was polluting the namespace

I tend to prefer to have the schemas near the code as schemas serve also as documentation

I prefer the Plumatic style as it's more about upfront (meta) data expression, m/=> feels unnecessarily clever and sort of indirect/IoC hellish since it comes after the function declaration. But that's just my two cents 🙂

One option would be this

https://github.com/galdre/morphe

make an aspect for it

^{::m/aspects [(contract [:=> [:cat int? int?] string?])]}
(m/defn some-fn [x y]
  (str (+ x y))

Does malli support plumatic style? how?

wip, https://github.com/metosin/malli/pull/305

Ok

@ikitommi In your previous message, you wrote: > just before the functions (`m/=>` is as long as `defn` , looks good What do you mean by m/=> before the function? In malli's README, m/=> comes after the function definition

this works too:

(m/=> plus [:=> [:cat [:* :int]] :int])
(defn plus [& ns] (apply + ns))

(plus 1 2 3)
; => 6

Nice. In fact malli treats function names as symbols

So it doesn't matter if you create the schema before the function is defined