Hmm. f{} is not f() so no consistency is really needed. And besides there is a saying about a foolish consistency…
If
```
f (
a,
b,
nil)
```
doesn’t thrill then how about
```
f (
a,
b,
...)
```
—
`·.¸¸ ><((((º>.·´¯`·><((((º>
><((((º> ·...><((((º>
·...><((((º>
Technically, that's not exactly semantically equivalent since "nil"
isn't the same as the empty vararg. As you have already pointed out,
it's also not exactly beautiful - which is what this tiny syntactic
change is all about :)