Maybe we can reword this a bit. For example:

If this constraint is enabled on a property that holds an array, each element in that array will be validated recursively.

What do you think?

I think this is wrong, this sentence is about optiondeep.
Constraint can beapplied to property, but not enabled and optiondeep can beenabled.

Yeah, you're right. I should have written it like this:

If the constraint is applied on a property that holds an array and thedeep option is enabled, each element in that array will be validated recursively.

I've used the same wording as used for optiontraverse.
Personally I also don't like that sentence, and I think that description of both options should be changed (in separate PR?).

Hi guys!

I've merged this in because it has some nice fixes and is at least 90% of the way there. So, let's talk about the wording here.

As I understand it (just from reading what we have here), these 2 options (traverse anddeep) applyonly if this is applied to a collection of objects. Is that correct?

Now, even though I can see the wording difference betweentraverse anddeep, I don't really understand yet what the difference is. Doestraverse mean "validate the objects" anddeep means "validate the objects AND validate any objects embedded in those objects"?. Or does it mean something else? Does it make sense to set bothtraverse anddeep to true at the same time, or is this redundant?

As you can see, I don't know yet exactly how this feature works. What I think we should do is include these in the main "Basic Usage" section so people can really see how they work and how they work together. This may mean we have a new sub-section called something like "Validating a collection of items".

What do you guys think?

I'm actually not sure what they do. Maybe@webmozart can shed some light on it.