I'm having some difficult reading because I don't have "names" for many of the operators,
such as <*>. I know that >>= is pronounced ?bind?, but what about the others? Is there some common consensus, a list somewhere, or at least the proper mathematical names to serve as a starting point? I'd hate to have to make something up (see < http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/intercalman/tonsila.html >) ?John 
Administrator

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:08 AM, John M. Dlugosz <ngnr63q02 at sneakemail.com>wrote:
> I'm having some difficult reading because I don't have "names" for many of > the operators, such as <*>. I know that >>= is pronounced "bind", but what > about the others? Is there some common consensus, a list somewhere, or at > least the proper mathematical names to serve as a starting point? Did you try a search? There are links out there. But it's true that a search will only get you so far. I think what we don't have enough is idiomatic English coupled to idiomatic Haskell. It's like a proof/program of a proposition in Euclidean geometry. One just gets it visually and doesn't really bother with verbalizing on the tongue. Provide a code fragment here, and folks will help you with it.  KimEe  next part  An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20140403/46c08272/attachment0001.html> 
As far as I know, there are no standard out there for this.
As Haskell allows to define custom operators, they tend to add up pretty quick and it's completely optional to give it a pronounceable name. Maybe we can propose a syntax to define a pronounceable name next to an operator, and make emacs say it out loud each time you type it (missed april's fool release notes). As KimEe said, a quick search can bring good content into the matter: HaskellWiki has a page about this: http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Pronunciation The HaskellWiki points to a thread: www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskellcafe/2008January/038756.html And there's a question at Stackoverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7746894/aretherepronounceablenamesforcommonhaskelloperators Hope it can help.  next part  An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20140403/4b86a48e/attachment.html> 
In reply to this post by John M. Dlugosz
For things that have a textual equivalent, I tend to use that (possibly
"infix X" or "X operator" if it's not clear from context) even if the equivalent is more or less specialized than the operator. For <*> in particular, that is "ap". On Apr 3, 2014 6:29 AM, "John M. Dlugosz" <ngnr63q02 at sneakemail.com> wrote: > I'm having some difficult reading because I don't have "names" for many of > the operators, such as <*>. I know that >>= is pronounced "bind", but what > about the others? Is there some common consensus, a list somewhere, or at > least the proper mathematical names to serve as a starting point? > > I'd hate to have to make something up (see < http://www.muppetlabs.com/~ > breadbox/intercalman/tonsila.html >) > > John > > _______________________________________________ > Beginners mailing list > Beginners at haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20140403/fe2ed97e/attachment.html> 
In reply to this post by KimEe Yeoh
On 04/04/14 03:28, KimEe Yeoh wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:08 AM, John M. Dlugosz > <ngnr63q02 at sneakemail.com <mailto:ngnr63q02 at sneakemail.com>> wrote: > > I'm having some difficult reading because I don't have "names" for > many of the operators, such as <*>. I know that >>= is pronounced > "bind", but what about the others? Is there some common > consensus, a list somewhere, or at least the proper mathematical > names to serve as a starting point? > > > Did you try a search? There are links out there. > > But it's true that a search will only get you so far. I think what we > don't have enough is idiomatic English coupled to idiomatic Haskell. > > It's like a proof/program of a proposition in Euclidean geometry. One > just gets it visually and doesn't really bother with verbalizing on > the tongue. > > Provide a code fragment here, and folks will help you with it. > >  KimEe > > > _______________________________________________ > Beginners mailing list > Beginners at haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners * angle butt * spaceship * apply * ap * angry eye  Tony Morris http://tmorris.net/  next part  An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20140404/07c238c0/attachment.html> 
As somewhat of an outsider (background in Math, working in the software
field), I find this topic a fascinating illustration of differences in optimization. Math (inclusive of statistics and theoretical physics) and computing (inclusive of IT and applications programming) seem to be two of the fields that have the greatest need for constant definition of new terms, frequently onthefly in support of a larger goal. (I'm excluding the legal, political, and marketing fields, for reasons best explained by Edwin Newman in _Strictly_Speaking_.) The mathematical approach optimizes for economy of writing/presentation, favoring singleletter, contextsensitive variable names and a typographer's paradise of symbols and alphabetic variations. Anecdotes abound of the specialist who finds papers from a different specialty to be cryptic. Computing, especially of the commercial variety, tends to optimize for recognition/hinting for the firsttime or infrequent reader, with a bias toward semantic naming, metaphor, and the palette of the QWERTYbased keyboard. Anecdotes abound of the complex agglutination of naming patterns in enterprisefocused frameworks. I agree with the observation that standardizing some idiomatic, naturallanguage verbalizations would tend to help bridge the gap between those two cultures (hints toward C.P. Snow intended). To use examples from this thread, verbalizing <*> as "apply" seems to bridge those two optimizations, with "ap" betraying the mathematical style of compression over obviousness, and the rest ("spaceship", etc.) showing a hackerstyle love of humor and insidejokes that is gratifying to the insiders but offputting to outsiders/novices. Each of the optimizations above is legitimate and valued by its community; insensitivity to those cultural issues will likely continue to reinforce the separation. The interesting question to me is whether that's what each community wants. On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Tony Morris <tonymorris at gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/04/14 03:28, KimEe Yeoh wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:08 AM, John M. Dlugosz <ngnr63q02 at sneakemail.com>wrote: > >> I'm having some difficult reading because I don't have "names" for many >> of the operators, such as <*>. I know that >>= is pronounced "bind", but >> what about the others? Is there some common consensus, a list somewhere, >> or at least the proper mathematical names to serve as a starting point? > > > Did you try a search? There are links out there. > > But it's true that a search will only get you so far. I think what we > don't have enough is idiomatic English coupled to idiomatic Haskell. > > It's like a proof/program of a proposition in Euclidean geometry. One > just gets it visually and doesn't really bother with verbalizing on the > tongue. > > Provide a code fragment here, and folks will help you with it. > >  KimEe > > > _______________________________________________ > Beginners mailing listBeginners at haskell.orghttp://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners > > I have heard the following for (<*>) > > * angle butt > * spaceship > * apply > * ap > * angry eye > > >  > Tony Morrishttp://tmorris.net/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Beginners mailing list > Beginners at haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners > >  Beauty of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm depend on simplicity.  Plato  next part  An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20140404/582744ae/attachment.html> 
I call (>>) "proceed". Not canonical or anything.
Daniel 
When instructing, I use the term "apply" for many reasons. I highly
recommend this term. On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 1:40 AM, D?niel Arat? <exitconsole at gmail.com> wrote: > I call (>>) "proceed". Not canonical or anything. > > Daniel > _______________________________________________ > Beginners mailing list > Beginners at haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners >  next part  An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20140405/aba2c3d6/attachment.html> 
Free forum by Nabble  Edit this page 