I was just very surprised to discover my :ret specs were not being checked via instrument. I've read the rationale above, but I'm not yet convinced. While of course I can (and will) use spec/assert from a post condition, I lose the nice selective instrumentation features.
I'd also like to make a counter-point to this reasoning: > Running return-value instrument-style checking on whatever few > hand-written tests you might have isn’t going to give you better coverage > than a simple (even hardwired) generator that captures similar ranges. In my case, I was already testing the root-level return value, but this function is deeply recursive. A small non-conforming value deep in the evaluation stack was yielding non-conformance at a path deep in the root return value. I was confused by why the :ret check wasn't finding it earlier. By relying on the top-level check rather than inline checks per-call (as per instrument or :pre/:post) I lost access to the call stack. Adding the post condition pin-pointed the problem instantly. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 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 clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
