Its has already been rejected from the core

Ah, thanks for the heads up, I wasnt aware

Mind elaborating as to why?

Because Rich wants to keep core small

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/clojure/qN1UPMVQmaM/discus...

I've never used Clojure but am extremely interested in ClojureScript and Elixir (or some hybrid of the best of both) running under a JavaScript-like syntax so that developers can build from their existing contextual knowledge. So far the closest language that I've found is Skip:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18077612

My comments:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18080968

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18086937

I'm not familiar with several of the functional programming terms brought up so far, but I think the gist of them is that all data structures need deterministic iteration.

So for example, I can understand how returning a copy of an immutable map might result in a new map whose values are in a different order than the original. But that isn't acceptable. Either the map's order is determined by aspects of its values (it's deterministic), or it's not. This might even need to be true for structures like sets that aren't thought of as having order.

This is a pretty serious situation for not just Clojure but a whole host of FP languages. Maybe this determinism is as important as immutability or process isolation. It certainly should rank higher than the need to minimize bloat. My vote is for Clojure to address it, even if it doesn't incorporate Specter.

I now have a minor buzz of curiosity about whether core hackers would complain about Specter returning different types for different arguments, which afaik directly opposes Clojure's idea of composition―where you always get same stuff as the result and recast it instead.