If the [...] syntax had a notation for passing on all arguments, implicit currying would be less important. Being explicit about the currying has the advantage that you don't have to know the arity of a function to recognize that currying is taking place.
How about allowing (+ 3 7 4 6 3) to be written as:
(let numbers '(4 6 3)
(+ 3 7 . numbers))
Couple this with [...] capturing all arguments in a variable and you get something like this (feel free to come up with a better variable than ^):
Yes, by all means. Here, I was talking about currying, though, so splicing was not a concern.
I'm not quite sure whether @ should be allowed to reuse the list when used at the end, but I believe it would be most correct not to. So (like mentioned several times before) the dot notation means cons, while @ means splice, which is not the same thing, even when used at the end of the surrounding list.
