>On 6 September 2017 at 13:31, Rowan Collins firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> I'm going to assume that the code you posted was something of a straw
>> man, and you're not actually advocating people copy 20 lines of code
>> every variable they want to validate.
>You assume wrong. No it's not, and yes I am.
>I can point a junior developer at the function and they can understand
>If I ask that junior developer to add an extra rule that doesn't
>currently exist, they can without having to dive into a full library
>of validation code.
I can certainly agree that a complex DSL might be more pain than it's worth, but copying around a regex and all its scaffolding is surely worse than a clearly named function like validate_non_negative_int?
That's why I asked in my last email if you thought ext/filter should be removed, and perhaps replaced by some more straightforward primitives, or just left as it is. If a broad strategic question like that feels too much like "wasting time on the list designing features" to you, I'm not sure what you would find acceptable discussion.