@fdeitylink Hi. Thanks for submitting a patch and sorry for the slow reply. I think I could be okay with something like this but instead of applying seq it could do like m/seqable does and accept the usual list/vector syntax. What do you think about that?

I'm not sure I get what you mean. I wrote m/sequential to look almost exactly like m/seqable, just with the predicate swapped out.. Do you want me to write m/sequential in terms of m/seqable?