Conversation

Ideal usage of applicatives would be a Lisp-style (map f x1 x2 ... xn) - hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4 is inductive mess req'd by static types

Still worth it for the types, mind you. But damn it confuses people

The original applicative paper proposed idiom brackets for this reason, and some languages like Idris support it natively.

Compare `[| f x y z |]` to `f <$> x <*> y <*> z` or `liftA3 f x y z`.

Can't we just call it `map3`? 😋

I think this deserves/needs syntax. :) The paper has more complex, and motivating, examples: strictlypositive.org/IdiomLite.pdf

Replying to

and

Oh yeah, not complaining about idiom brackets, more about `liftA3` :)

Replying to

and

Oh, alright. I agree to that. :) This is what Elm and F# do, I believe.

I'm also a big fan of libraries and langs that go back to using `map` instead of `fmap`. Let's not perpetuate Haskell's oddities! 😝