David Sankel wrote:
After reading several recent papers I came to the understanding that
there isn't consensus on the name of Applicative Functors. Several
prefer to call them idioms:
"'Idiom' was the name McBride originally chose, but he and Paterson
now favour the less evocative term `applicative functor'. We have a
slight preference for the former, not least because it lends itself
nicely to adjectival uses, as in `idiomatic traversal'"[1]
I also noticed use of the term Idiom in [2], [3], and [4].
I much prefer the name Applicative Functor, because 'idiom' and especially
'idiomatic' can mean lots of other things (just look up the word in a
dictionary!). While an applicative functor is always a functor with 'pure' and
'ap' operations.
> I'm writing a set of classes that includes AF's and I'm trying to
> decide whether to call the class Idiom. Anyone have more information
> on this question?
Why are you writing your own? How do your classes differ from the standard
Control.Applicative?
Twan
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
