Tommi Reiman

I think the separate top-level property can get too easily out of sync with the implementation, I would push the properties to children or entries: anonymous -> children: ```clj [:or...

malli currently supports this partially using registry references (only strings & qualified keywords): ```clj (m/validate [:map {:registry {::a int? ::b boolean?}} ::a ::b] {::a 1, ::b true}) ; => true...

How about creating custom sorted collection `IntoSchema`s in user space? an incomplete example of `:sorted-set`: ```clj (require '[malli.core :as m]) (require '[malli.transform :as mt]) (defn -sorted-set [] (m/-collection-schema {:type :sorted-set...

could also be a separate namespace `malli.sorted`, but we could start by doing the things as a good example/doc how to create custom `IntoSchema`s, under `/docs`.

looks good, with basic tests could merge this and rename to `malli.experimental.time` so it's usable, despite not complete yet. Or we should add implementations to all concern (generation etc), in...

Closed #546 without merging.

This is asked a lot. Just merge with all branches of do we need to derive effective types for schemas first (#264)?

Original idea in supporting only strings and keywords was to limit ways one mess things up - If anything could be a reference, one could have a registry where core...

Thinking aloud, either: 1. the forms should not change from the original input, but `string?` could be mapped to a `m/-string-schema`, which could take the `:type` as an argument so...

Good points. That said, type definitions should be portable between clj & cljs, right? (related: #264). There was an online discussion about having a custom map Schema in user space,...