[Haskell-cafe] Applicative Functor or Idiom?
camior at gmail.com
Fri Nov 20 14:09:01 EST 2009
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'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?
 Gibbons, J. and Oliveira, B. c. 2009. The essence of the iterator
pattern. J. Funct. Program. 19, 3-4 (Jul. 2009), 377-402. DOI=
 RALF HINZE (2009). The Bird Tree. Journal of Functional
Programming, 19 , pp 491-508 doi:10.1017/S0956796809990116
 S. Lindley, P. Wadler, and J. Yallop. Idioms are oblivious, arrows
are meticulous, monads are promiscuous. In Proc. of MSFP, 2008.
 The Arrow Calculus, Sam Lindley, Philip Wadler, and Jeremy Yallop.
Tech report, 2008.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe