> I would argue that someone should be able to understand what a function does by reading the name regardless of their understanding of the underlying language

> I would argue that someone should be able to understand what a function does by reading the name regardless of their understanding of the underlying language it is written in. You're saying that if someone doesn't know Haskell, they should be able to understand what functions in Haskell do by their name. Which disqualifies standard names like >>=, hoist, and more.