These are chat archives for dry-rb/chat
Next-gen ruby libs! » github.com/dry-rb » website: https://dry-rb.org » forum: https://discourse.dry-rb.org
Dry::Types[‘strict.range’][“not range”]will raise
@solnic I know it will. My question was, is there any point to declaring a
Dry::Types['strict.range'] in addition to the
Dry::Types['range']? Is there anything that is necessarily done for Strict over and above what constitutes a valid value for non-Strict? In the case of Range, you can't really initialise a (standard Ruby) Range instance with anything other than a valid Range; hence, anything built on top of that should have the same limitation. Seems that
Strict in this instance is merely a conventional placeholder, yes?
Not that that's a problem; I was just trying to explain to the other user of this code why the distinction exists, and I couldn't :P