>> (values=>vector (values 1 2 3)) ;; #(1 2 3) >> (vector->values (vector 1 2 3)) ;; same as (values 1 2 3) >> >> (=>vector (values 1 2 3)) ;; #(1 2 3) >> (->values (vector 1 2 3)) ;; same as (values 1 2 3) > +1, except that foo=>bar might be confusing, given that foo -> bar means > "foo evaluates to bar". How about a wavy arrow, foo~>bar, instead? A > subtle but visible difference. IMHO subtlety is best avoided. Can we go with simpler names, even if they are slightly "incorrect"? To me, the real issue is whether they are incorrect in a way that is easily misunderstood. If they are technically incorrect but people get what it means anyway, that's less problematic than coining a special-looking name just for the purpose.
