Equality of => and fn-schema? #376

Activity

1. w01fe commented on Sep 30, 2016

   

   w01fe

   on Sep 30, 2016

   Member

   More actions

   I'm not sure that I would recommend this -- if you really want this validation, another approach would be to wrap the function that's an argument in a schematized function.

   That said, we do test equality like this in the tests (just to make sure fns get the right schemas):

   https://github.com/plumatic/schema/blob/master/test/cljx/schema/core_test.cljx#L855

   The catch is, if you look inside the objects:

   user> (pprint (clojure.data/diff (s/=> s/Bool s/Str s/Int) (s/fn-schema (s/fn :- s/Bool [a :- s/Str b :- s/Int]))))
   ({:input-schemas [[{:name arg0} {:name arg1}]]}
    {:input-schemas [[{:name a} {:name b}]]}
    {:input-schemas
     [[{:optional? false, :schema java.lang.String}
       {:optional? false, :schema Int}]],
     :output-schema java.lang.Boolean})

   you can see that the issue is the argument names are part of the fn-schema (and I don't think there's a way to provide them). They are in there to provide nice documentation of the arglists for tooling, IIRC. I guess technically FnSchema could ignore them when computing equality, but then it couldn't be a Record, and all in all I'm not sure it would be a net win.

   That said, if you really want this, you could just write your own `equivalent-fn-schemas
2. w01fe commented on Sep 30, 2016

   

   w01fe

   on Sep 30, 2016

   Member

   More actions

   oops, submitted by accident.

   That said, if you really want this, you could just write your own equivalent-fn-schemas function that ignores the arg names and use that in place of =.

   Does that all make sense? HTH