Every time `instance Monoid Foo` occurs in the Haddock documentation of a Haskell datatype which is pretty often!
> Does the frequency with which this occurs justify introducing new terminology?
"Justify" according to what set of criteria? Personally I prefer it.
> you artificially inflated the wording to make "x is associative and has a neutral element y" look more complicated than it actually is
So your suggestion is
* baz is associative and quux is a neutral element for it
Really, if you're going to go that far you may as well go all the way and just say
* Foo is a Monoid under baz and quux
> while not even naming in your "short" case what the operation and neutral element are.
Well, in the Haskell world they're implied by the typeclass instance, but I take your point.
Every time `instance Monoid Foo` occurs in the Haddock documentation of a Haskell datatype which is pretty often!
> Does the frequency with which this occurs justify introducing new terminology?
"Justify" according to what set of criteria? Personally I prefer it.
> you artificially inflated the wording to make "x is associative and has a neutral element y" look more complicated than it actually is
So your suggestion is
* baz is associative and quux is a neutral element for it
Really, if you're going to go that far you may as well go all the way and just say
* Foo is a Monoid under baz and quux
> while not even naming in your "short" case what the operation and neutral element are.
Well, in the Haskell world they're implied by the typeclass instance, but I take your point.