Left-adjoint of forgetful functor

[Madder]

Isn't it supposed to be the free functor?

[non]

I think in this context the author really meant this to read free monad. Thanks for pointing out the problem. Does this make sense to you?

[Madder]

I agree. He certainly means Free monad in this context. Free functor being the more general concept of a left-adjoint of a forgetful functor. Another issue I see is that pure is not the "applicative" part, as both pure and flatmap are part of the monad structure: applicative is simply a by product of being a monad.

[ceedubs]

@Madder thanks for pointing this out.

It sounds like we all agree that it should be changed to free monad.

As for at the "applicative part" - I can see the author's point (no pun intended, but I'll go with it) that by taking a Functor and adding pure you have an Applicative. But if you have ideas on how to improve the wording, they would be welcomed!

Would you be interested in submitting a PR for any changes you'd like to see?

[Madder]

@ceedubs Possibly a stupid question, but don't you need an apply : F[A=>B] => F[A] => F[B] or a map2 : (F[A],F[B]) => ((A,B) => C) => F[C] to get an Applicative out of a Functor? Or is pure enough somehow?

[ceedubs]

@Madder oops you are quite right :)

[codecov-io]

Current coverage is 88.13%

Merging #1056 into master will not change coverage

@@             master      #1056   diff @@
==========================================
  Files           224        224          
  Lines          2839       2839          
  Methods        2782       2782          
  Messages          0          0          
  Branches         52         52          
==========================================
  Hits           2502       2502          
  Misses          337        337          
  Partials          0          0          

Powered by Codecov. Last updated by c43625e...b1b5985

[Madder]

@ceedubs I've updated the PR with free monad instead free functor. I've also replaced applicative with pointed which is more accurate but I'm not sure whether it fits in that context anymore... Let me know if you prefer another formulation. I can change the PR accordingly or submit a new one if preferable.

[ceedubs]

@Madder thank you. If someone wants to further refine this, they should feel free to, but 👍 from me.

[non]

👍 looks good to me. thanks for working on this!