`RepresentableProfunctor` is a really really long name

[15:42] edwardk:     shachaf: i don't like the length, i'm using it because its a correct statement for now
[15:43] edwardk:     that said we probably want our own class for this because its not indicating properly that its representable by a left adjoint
[15:43] edwardk:     and thats the relevant property. the comonad is too general
[15:43] shachaf:     Can you rename the clas in the package too?
[15:43] edwardk:     probably not
[15:43] shachaf:     :-(
[15:43] shachaf:     Also it might be nicer as a fundep.
[15:43] edwardk:     its the 'right' name for the class.
[15:44] shachaf:     RepProfunctor is shorter.
[15:44] edwardk:     it might be for some uses
[15:44] elliott:     Reprofunctor
[15:44] edwardk:     yes, but i really don't like random abbreviations
[15:44] shachaf:     elliott: In my file I called it Repro.
[15:44] elliott:     R
[15:44] shachaf:     "Comonad (Rep p)"
[15:44] edwardk:     i didn't say i wasn't a hypocrit
[15:45] edwardk:     class Profunctor p => Rep r p | p -> r ?
[15:45] shachaf:     "Rep" can also mean "Representable functor"
[15:45] edwardk:     inverts a lot of meanings
[15:45] edwardk:     yeah but we don't use representable functor in this library
[15:45] shachaf:     But that was the class I had.
[15:45] shachaf:     Sure, but the name gets exposed to users.
[15:46] edwardk:     i could be talked into moving these down to Rep and Corep
[15:46] edwardk:     i'm less concerned with compatibility with representable-functors
[15:46] edwardk:     and i want to offload C.L.Representable anyways
[15:46] shachaf:     Given that you're taking over the name Rep anyway I guess it's not so bad.
[15:47] edwardk:     yeah
[15:47] edwardk:     i'll create an issue on representable-profunctors
ekmett / profunctors

`RepresentableProfunctor` is a really really long name #2
