Can we argue about the fixity for (<&>)? I've always it as infixl 4, to mix it in with other applicative operators, e.g.:

(:) <$> fx <*> fl

becomes

fx <&> (:) <*> fl

I agree, this seems to be a mistake in lens.

Last I checked,

(&) = flip ($)

is both shorter to type, and more explicit than:

import Control.Apply.Reverse

- Clark

Well the purpose here is to propose a standard name and fixity, not to save keystrokes.

When a lot of libraries start to define a (trivial) thing under different names, that to me is a good indication that it should be in the standard library. It is a matter of keeping the signal-to-noise ratio large, which greatly helps when reading unfamiliar code.

Hans