> What are your thoughts on implementing reversible patterns? I'm thinking something like this (defprotocol Pattern (extract [this input] "=> bindin

> What are your thoughts on implementing reversible patterns? I'm thinking something like this (defprotocol Pattern (extract [this input] "=> bindings") (replace [this input bindings] "=> new-input")) This should obey some rule like: (submap? (extract p (replace p input bindings)) bindings) That would make the data-grammar/generic-traversal experiments much nicer and also cleanly delineates patterns from views. It may also help when I try to do things like generative testing. Not quite sure how that would work for (or ...) and (not ...) patterns, so it still needs more hammock time.