Thanks for the reply!
So does that mean it is officially correct behavior for a function return type to be inferred from its the tag on its var name?
While the Eastwood docs agree, it's not the same as an official language spec (which is why I'm asking on this forum)
The sentence you refer to in the clojure.org docs does not make it clear if hinting a _function_ var would hint its return type or the function object itself:
> They can be placed on function parameters, let-bound names, var names (when defined), and expressions
After all `defn` macroexpands to a `def` form, and placing a type hint on a `def` var refers to the type of value stored at the var.
So it seems strange and confusing for type hints on function vars to have two simultaneous interpretations, and for there to be multiple syntactical slots for hinting return types.