>giving a special meaning to existing legal identifiers in certain contexts risks breaking existing code That's just what scoped variables are. I've never seen

>giving a special meaning to existing legal identifiers in certain contexts risks breaking existing code That's just what scoped variables are. I've never seen it be a hazard other than shadowing names, and you'll have the same problem with @1, @2, etc. A closure returning a closure for instance. Unless you're just completely misunderstanding me, thinking I'd be a proponent of fst, snd as direct substitutions for @1, @2? That would be absurd. I'm comparing |fst,snd| fst+snd to @1+@2. Code isn't going to break with either.