Unfortunately, this is then deoptimized for the most common one-argument case, where you have to write [... _.0 ...]. We could have [...] expand to (fn __ (let _ (car _) ...)), so that you would have
(reduce [- (/ __.1 (* 2 __.0))] mylist)
but still have
(map [+ _ (* _ _)] myotherlist)
. I still prefer the _1, _2, ... syntax, though---unsurprisingly, as I contributed that implementation (though not the idea) :)
Actually, I do think the _1, _2 .. syntax makes the most sense, if you aren't wanting to name parameters. Though maybe (as was mentioned above) in some cases, the first three should be a b c, or x y z? I don't know how you would set that up to work well with what already exists though.
