4 ms·

I cringed a little when, in the example of fmap (+3) (Just 2), they call (Just 2) a functor. After just having explained that a functor is a typeclass. So Maybe

• TheMatten 5y ago
  I think "functorial" may be the right word - try https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functoriality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functoriality
  • tromp 5y ago
    Would that make "monadial" the right word for monadic values?!
    • TheMatten 5y ago
      I usually see "monadic" - I mean, I don't think that spelling of words in general tends to be tied to their meaning in specific contexts.
      • tel 5y ago
        Monadic/functorial are the adjective forms of monad/functor. You might say that "List has a monadic nature". This is hinting at the idea that List by itself isn't really a Monad, but instead (List, pure, bind) is. The op is talking about something different, though. What is a term for List Int, a concrete type instead of a type constructor. We cannot call List Int a Monad, we cannot even call (List Int, pure_Int, bind_Int) a Monad. The definition really requires polymorphism. But, obviously, List Int is closely related to the List-Monad. I've also heard "monadic value" used. I tend to just use "monad" even though I know it's an even greater abuse of language.
• throwaway81523 5y ago
  > it feels weird to call values of type (Maybe a) functors as well. Yes, that is bogus. If you're tolerant of math jargon, I found this article demystified the topic more than anything else did: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Category_theory https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Category_theory And this explains where the monad laws come from: https://www.haskellforall.com/2012/08/the-category-design-pattern.html https://www.haskellforall.com/2012/08/the-category-design-pa...
• ford_o 5y ago
  Does it feel weird to call spaghetti a meal?
  • matt-noonan 5y ago
    A more accurate translation to food would be something like “does it feel weird to call a physical plate of spaghetti a recipe?”