Disclaimer: I've used -<> without quote handling for a long time, so this may just be resistance to change. However:
The quote special case seems weird. It's like, "we'll put the form in the list/map/whatever, unless the CAR is the symbol "quote", in which case we'll do it to the CADR instead.
But more importantly, whereas the base <> behavior is (empirically!) quite intuitive, what happens for quote is not. Notwithstanding Bruce's First Law of Lisp:
#_1 (-<> (blah) '(a <> b))
#_2 (-<> (blah) '<>)
In form 1, according to the README, (blah) is not evalled. I wouldn't care to guess that. Of course, that is also the case for form 2 without quote handling; however, the simpler rule for list scanning yields that conclusion as well.
Disclaimer: I've used
-<>
without quote handling for a long time, so this may just be resistance to change. However:The quote special case seems weird. It's like, "we'll put the form in the list/map/whatever, unless the CAR is the symbol "quote", in which case we'll do it to the CADR instead.
But more importantly, whereas the base
<>
behavior is (empirically!) quite intuitive, what happens for quote is not. Notwithstanding Bruce's First Law of Lisp:In form 1, according to the
README
,(blah)
is not evalled. I wouldn't care to guess that. Of course, that is also the case for form 2 without quote handling; however, the simpler rule for list scanning yields that conclusion as well.