[Haskell-cafe] Applicative Functor or Idiom?
Twan van Laarhoven
twanvl at gmail.com
Fri Nov 20 14:58:24 EST 2009
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'"
> I also noticed use of the term Idiom in , , and .
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
> 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
More information about the Haskell-Cafe