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 Kim-Ee 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/haskell-cafe/2008-January/038756.html And there's a question at Stackoverflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7746894/are-there-pronounceable-names-for... Hope it can help.

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 on-the-fly 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 single-letter, context-sensitive 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 first-time or infrequent reader, with a bias toward semantic naming, metaphor, and the palette of the QWERTY-based keyboard. Anecdotes abound of the complex agglutination of naming patterns in enterprise-focused frameworks. I agree with the observation that standardizing some idiomatic, natural-language 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 hacker-style love of humor and inside-jokes that is gratifying to the insiders but off-putting 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 wrote:

On 04/04/14 03:28, Kim-Ee Yeoh wrote:

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 6:08 AM, John M. Dlugosz 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.

-- Kim-Ee

_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing listBeginners@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@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners

-- Beauty of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm depend on simplicity. - Plato

When instructing, I use the term "apply" for many reasons. I highly recommend this term. On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Dániel Arató wrote:

I call (>>) "proceed". Not canonical or anything.

Daniel _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners