I like "C morphism" in general, where "C" is the class name, so I use "Applicative morphism" or "applicative functor morphism" (as in <a href="http://conal.net/papers/type-class-morphisms/">http://conal.net/papers/type-class-morphisms/</a>).<br>
<br> - Conal<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 8:49 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:roconnor@theorem.ca">roconnor@theorem.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
An applicative functor morphism is a polymorphic function,<br>
eta : forall a. A1 a -> A2 a between two applicative functors A1 and A2 that preserve pure and <*>:<br>
<br>
eta (pure c) = pure c<br>
eta (f <*> x) = eta f <*> eta x<br>
<br>
What do you guys call such a thing? My leading candidate is "idomatic transformation".<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Russell O'Connor <<a href="http://r6.ca/" target="_blank">http://r6.ca/</a>><br>
``All talk about `theft,''' the general counsel of the American Graphophone<br>
Company wrote, ``is the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in<br>
ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as defined by statute.''<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org" target="_blank">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>