Implement support for destructuring

[vemv]

Brief

Fixes nedap/utils.spec#22

Speced symbols within destructurings now get the usual benefits:

• They account for :pre conditions
• Type hints are inferred (^string -> ^String)

QA plan

Green build should suffice given the coverage added as part of this PR.

Author checklist

• [x] I have QAed the functionality
• [x] The PR has a reasonably reviewable size and a meaningful commit history
• [x] I have run the branch formatter and observed no new/significative warnings
• [x] I have self-reviewed the PR prior to assignment, and its build passes
• Specifically, I have code-reviewed iteratively the PR considering the following aspects in isolation:
  • [x] Correctness
  • [x] Robustness (red paths, failure handling etc)
  • [x] Modular design
  • [x] Test coverage
  • [x] Spec coverage
  • [x] Documentation
  • [x] Security
  • [x] Performance
  • [x] Cross-compatibility (Clojure/ClojureScript)

Reviewer checklist

• [x] I have checked out this branch and reviewed it locally, running it
• [x] I have QAed the functionality
• I have code-reviewed iteratively the PR considering the following aspects in isolation:
  • [x] Business-facing correctness
  • [x] Robustness (red paths, failure handling etc)
  • [x] Modular design
  • [x] Test coverage
  • [x] Spec coverage
  • [x] Documentation
  • [x] Security
  • [x] Performance
  • [ ] Cross-compatibility (Clojure/ClojureScript)

[vemv]

PR Ready

Would appreciate if someone can assign himself to review it through the checklist (last one was too big so I didn't expect that then)

[tcoenraad]

I left a few remarks with regards to what I found confusing or thought could be formulated a bit sharper. We look forward to use this in Link 😄

[vemv]

Ready again. The separate issue https://github.com/nedap/utils.spec/issues/63 is b/c I have another branch going on and don't want to create a merge conflict

[vemv]

🍻!