beneroth changed the topic of #picolisp to: PicoLisp language | The scalpel of software development | Channel Log: https://libera.irclog.whitequark.org/picolisp | Check www.picolisp.com for more information
pablo_escoberg has quit [Quit: Client closed]
seninha has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
chexum has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
chexum has joined #picolisp
rob_w has joined #picolisp
msavoritias has joined #picolisp
Riffer has joined #picolisp
seninha has joined #picolisp
Riffer has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
rob_w has quit [Quit: Leaving]
seninha has quit [Quit: Leaving]
seninha has joined #picolisp
seninha has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
seninha has joined #picolisp
msavoritias has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
seninha has quit [Quit: Leaving]
pablo_escoberg has joined #picolisp
<pablo_escoberg> I'm having trouble finding documentation on entity validation.  AFAICT, it all happens in `mis>`, which is fine, but is there a method that checks all relations (or even a single relation) for the validity of it's current value?  Trying to avoid reinventing the wheel here...
pablo_escoberg has quit [Quit: Client closed]
pablo_escoberg has joined #picolisp
<pablo_escoberg> Also, AFAICT, the various relations' `mis>` methods all take `Val` and  `Obj` arguments, but only use the first.  What am I missing?
<abu[7]> Hi pablo_escoberg! I use (dbCheck) to check the DB.
<abu[7]> mis> is used only in the GUI
<pablo_escoberg> Ah, ok.  I'll look for dbCheck in the code.  Thanks for the goto.
<abu[7]> Applications usually have application-level 'check>' methods which do some high-level app-specific checks
<abu[7]> They throw a GUI error and force the user in some way
abu[7] has left #picolisp [#picolisp]
abu[7] has joined #picolisp
abu[7] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
abu[7] has joined #picolisp
<abu[7]> oops
<abu[7]> (dbCheck) first does a low-level (dbck) and then various heuristics to check indexes and other things like dangling references and entity-counts
<pablo_escoberg> Oh, I see.  In that case, I'll build my own validator methods for the API.
<abu[7]> yes, good idea
<abu[7]> I would call them 'check>' for consistency
<abu[7]> the demo app has a *very* simple example
<abu[7]> (dm check> () in er.l
<abu[7]> These methods return NIL if all is OK, or a list of diagnostic messages
<abu[7]> This makes it easy to inherit errors from paremt classes via extra and super
<pablo_escoberg> nice.  I was going to call it  `validate>` but I'll use `check>` instead.
<abu[7]> good
seninha has joined #picolisp
seninha has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
seninha has joined #picolisp