> including those communicated implicitly through naming As an aside, this is an aspect of what I like about choice of names like "Functor" and "Monoid". Ther

> including those communicated implicitly through naming As an aside, this is an aspect of what I like about choice of names like "Functor" and "Monoid". There is very little room for ambiguity. Further aside... In Haskell, there's still "do we include operational equivalence?" and "are we considering equivalence only up to bottom?". But at least the guarantees around the semantics for non-bottom values are reliably uncontroversial.