OK, bit of scope creep on the above PR to include maps. 🙂

Some hilarious examples.

(let [m {:a 1 :b 2 :c 3 :d 4 :e 5 :f 6 :g 7 :h 8 :i 9}]
  (r/find m
    {:g 7 :h 8 :i 9
     &a {?k (r/pred even?) & '{} :as ?m1}
     &b ?m2}
    [?k ?m1 ?m2]))
;; =>
[:f {:f 6} {:e 5, :c 3, :b 2, :d 4, :a 1}]

(let [?m1 {:a 1 :b 2}
      ?m2 {:c 3 :d 4}
      ?kvs1 [[:e 5] [:f 6]]]
  (r/subst {&1 ?m1
            &2 ?m2
            &3 ?kvs1
            &4 [[:g 7] [:h 8] [:i 9]]}))
;; =>
{:a 1 :b 2 :c 3 :d 4 :e 5 :f 6 :g 7 :h 8 :i 9}

So basically symbols with names matching the regex &.* can be used many times.

I just need to do a bit of post processing to clean up the output for substitution.

So just FYI the new syntax will allow you to write

(a b c & _ l m n & _ x y z)

(a b c . _ ... l m n . _ ... x y z)

The PR is still open, I haven’t merged anything yet. I’m waiting on review/approval/comments from others (if anyone has them).

I'm still not here, but tomorrow I'll be talking publicly about why meander is awesome

Awesome! Good luck with your talk.

Everyone: I’m also starting to make some updates to the backlog. Currently I’m moving some issues to the discussions section, and closing issues which either can’t be resolved or do not seem like “discussion material” pending an action plan, etc.

OK. I think for the most part thats done.

Probably the most important discussion at the moment will is the one about configuration: https://github.com/noprompt/meander/discussions/179

I urge anyone with opinions/ideas about the matter to chip in.

When I get a chance, I plan on opening a discussion about zeta .

I will probably mention this in that discussion, but I want to let everyone know that I plan to make zeta the final version of the library (with me as the maintainer anyway) so I would like to ensure that it is robust enough to adapt and extend.

You've had enough? 😉