I find myself rephrasing the question as: do we want special syntax for [] when _ occurs only in final position? Did you want something more powerful?
Hey, is your define-partial example correct? I think it should evaluate to
(t t nil nil nil)
I thought about making [] more powerful.. but I can't find a way to do it the "arc way".
What I am proposing is: instead of creating a special construct for currying, why not make a convention that all arc functions be currying?
so simply: (< 2) evaluate to [< 2 _] .. No special suggar, just by convention.
And for the cases where we want more powerful currying technics, we can still use the [] syntax.
I.e.: [> _ 2]
-----
You originally:
(map (> 2) '(1 2 3 4 5)) -> (nil nil t t t) (map [> _ 2] '(1 2 3 4 5)) -> (nil nil t t t)
(map (> 2) '(1 2 3 4 5)) -> (t t nil nil nil) (map [> _ 2] '(1 2 3 4 5)) -> (nil nil t t t)
(map (> 2) '(1 2 3 4 5)) -> (nil nil t t t) (map [> _ 2] '(1 2 3 4 5)) -> (t t nil nil nil)
Feel free to edit the original post to make the discussion clearer.
Update: Edit link is now gone.
