I honestly don’t get why you would do that to yourself. Why not just make a fn?

Verbosity of fn syntax. Concision

I mean, I'm not sold on the syntax either 🙂 but I'm just betting that it's at least worth exploring

If perhaps just for fun exploration or some interesting use cases

I actually recently did something like that for ordinal argument with defaults https://gist.github.com/dantheobserver/e21b6f7fed74dca079edf2806b71791a

though ended up not using it because it's missing the case of passing in a var rather than a vector literal. But it's always fun going down macro rabbit holes

I guess I'll start a #perc channel to discuss it

One critique is I would say is the tradeoff you make to be consice I feel makes it lose some of its clarity. I think most fns that would need to do ocmplex destructuring would be better off as a named function anyway. in most languages that support unnamed functions they have a limited and straightfoward use case (simple events, basic mapping, etc) anything more complex can be better understood as a name in place of a more complex function.

But, sometimes, when that function is a value in a map, the function already has a name, in the form of the key... why keep changing the name? Head on over to #perc for further discussion. I'm going to riff on some of the rationale over there.