`ap`is not reasonable

I am writing this issue to prevent confusion to new readers.

With the change of the ap function, ‘pretty’ is favored over readability.

definition of map:

A linear transformation; i.e. a -> fn(a)

definition of chain:

A derive of a composition, i.e. g(fn(a)) -> g(a).f(a)

definition of apply:

Isomorphism of a left-associative function, i.e. fn(x*y) -> fn(x,y)

The ap definition as of right now suggests right-associative, giving the reverse of what an apply does.

We may enjoy having consistent definitions, but please do not spread false definitions.

[SimonRichardson]

I think we should close this, although this is a good discussion, it’s not going anywhere… If anyone disagrees just reopen…

[evilsoft]

@davidchambers and @joneshf: well thinking on the feedback you two have given me, it seems like it all goes back to what my dear, sainted grandaddy Hicks used to say: “Ian, always remember, Union Types make everything better”