probably true (i haven't tested), but I find as a general rule that seeding reduce is good practise, else you often hit unexpected edge cases, as the accumulator is the first element of the array, not the result of the function.

the accumulator may have a different shape to the elements.

yeah. but this will not work for number > 9 ("10:1")

I'm not saying you're wrong in trying to "revive" the issue, but you have to be careful. I think it would be acceptable to close previous issues, if you could summarize them well in your own issue (and keeping it at the top).

I'm guessing you don't have the rights to close older issues, so you'd probably have to consult about this on CW Discord server.

At the end of the day, it should be up to the translator or the author to get this fixed, but neither seem to care too much about it, leaving us in a rough spot. And there really aren't that many active Clojure users willing to fix stuff like this :/

No, that's not how it works. You don't open the same issue twice (more than that in this case), until the old one gets resolved. You can provide the same information in older posts too.

Also, what context? You just posted some stack trace, without any context at all! (other than it's about Clojure) Much of this information was already provided in previous issues, proving this one as redundant.

There are already 2 open issues about this, including one from 7-8 years ago. Why do you think it's neccessary to raise another one?