>From clojure.spec - Rationale and overview <http://clojure.org/about/spec>:
Almost nothing about spec is novel. See all the libraries mentioned above, RDF <https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/>, as well as all the work done on various contract systems, such as Racket’s contracts <http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/contracts.html> On Tuesday, 30 August 2016 21:36:29 UTC+1, Clark Kampfe wrote: > > Hi folks, > > I was reading David's post, A Tool For Thought > <https://swannodette.github.io/2016/06/03/tools-for-thought>, and noticed > this bit and the paper referenced above it: "By casting validation as > fundamentally a parsing problem (computer science!), we get a wonderfully > expressive language for *crisply describing* our Clojure programs without > changing how we *joyfully write them*." > > I've been learning a lot from the paper, Parsing with Derivatives > <http://matt.might.net/papers/might2011derivatives.pdf>, and tons more > from using spec. > > It got me curious: can anyone comment on or link to any of the other prior > computer science art/work/papers/libraries that has influenced spec? > Obviously things core.typed, plumatic schema, etc. Would love to hear from > folks who have worked on spec. Thanks in advance! > > Clark > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
