I've re-looked into your original questions, in an attempt to provide a meaningful response, but I find the scenario's are not concrete enough.
For example I find the re-arrange function a little vague.
i.e. could you not:
(def something (a b c)
(output b c a))
Could you provide an real-case like example where you feel you can show a clear difference? For, I found, even your row example can easily work with stdout inside a function rather than using pg's macro. ie. Not liking how some of the existing functions/macros work doesn't mean string weaving is the answer.
And row is a pretty crappy example, even when I built my Clojure library, I ditched pg's implementation and went with a more useful implementation, yet it still uses stdout. You have to remember that pg only built those macro's to support his specific cases in his HN app.
Also, for > Too many tricks. Too clever.
Well it's a library, it's not expected you're crafting macros for your regular coding. I mean there's only so many HMTL cases you need to handle right? So if the library is complete, providing (macro's or not) succinct code and faster results, then it's probably good to have - tricks inside or not.
