[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