On 2020-06-05 13:40 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> I think the term was developed independently of "applicative-functor".  I
> really don't want a bunch of Scheme procedure names with
> "applicative-functor" in them, though I admit "idiom" may be easily
> confused with its wider sense of "idiosyncratic way of expressing something
> in a particular language".

Agreed, "idiom" is preferable to "applicative functor", which is
too verbose.  And Haskell's "Applicative" is deplorably ambiguous.

CC'd to the ml, since John replied off-list.

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe  <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>

"[T]he purpose of abstracting is _not_ to be vague, but
to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely
precise." --Edsger W. Dijkstra