Having simple macros like string?, number?, table?, nil?, etc. would increase the readability of code that may use them.
The only thing I'm worried about is the existing table? in macro context. iirc, it checks if an AST node is a table literal, as opposed to runtime type of table. I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to rename AST checking macros to be: table-literal?, sequence-literal?, etc.
Having simple macros like
string?,number?,table?,nil?, etc. would increase the readability of code that may use them.The only thing I'm worried about is the existing
table?in macro context. iirc, it checks if an AST node is a table literal, as opposed to runtime type of table. I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to rename AST checking macros to be:table-literal?,sequence-literal?, etc.