Add Range validator

[waterlink]

fixes #167

Implemented first option:

Contract (1..10) => String
def do_something(range)

[waterlink]

/cc @egonSchiele @gsinclair

[gsinclair]

Nice. What happens if you pass a string, say, to a 1..10 argument? And what should happen?

[alex-fedorov]

Good question. Will add spec for that ;)

[alex-fedorov]

Well, as I think about it further, what should happen? One of:

• ContractError: Expected: 1..10; Actual: "hello world" - this is how it works now;
• ContractError: Expected: Range(Numeric); Actual: String - this is nice, but what to do if you have a range of some weird type that has inheritance and stuff like this, how to determine base type?

WDYT?

[gsinclair]

I think how it works now is fine. Worth making a spec though.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:21 PM, Alexey Fedorov [email protected]
wrote:

Well, as I think about it further, what should happen? One of:

• ContractError: Expected: 1..10; Actual: "hello world" - this is how it works now;

• ContractError: Expected: Range(Numeric); Actual: String - this is nice, but what to do if you have a range of some weird type that has inheritance and stuff like this, how to determine base type?
  WDYT?

  Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
  Add Range validator #184 (comment)

[waterlink]

@gsinclair I actually have added spec for this before adding my last comment ;)

[egonSchiele]

thanks!

[abevoelker]

Ooh I was just looking for a Range contract last night - nice timing and thank you!