The only rule I would have is to ban all the operators and force everyone to use actual words for names. For example (^.) is not allowed but `view` is.
I sometimes find myself thinking the same, but then I remember "Notation as a tool of thought"[0] and become less sure.
Also I remember some lens compositions being more awkwatd with words, though I can't recall an example.
Yeah, this is what I view as a enormous weakness of Haskell compared to Lisp/Scheme, where in the latter descriptive naming is a community norm.
It makes for much more readable code... especially if I've been away from the language for a while.
Haskell doesn’t have operators in the classic sense, since they’re just an alternate syntax (infix) for regular functions; implemented in libraries. The Haskell ecosystem OTOH has a shitton of infix functions, as does Edward Kmett’s lens library. I don’t think there’s any reason to bother memorizing the ones that aren’t useful to you. You can always search them on Hoogle if you encounter one you don’t know. E.g. https://hoogle.haskell.org/?hoogle=%28%5E.%29&scope=set%3Ast...
I use lenses frequently in a large application and have only ever used view, set, and over.
Actually in Haskell there is a concept of 'functions' and 'operators'. The former are made up symbols, while the latter are made up mostly alphanumeric characters. Also they parse differently.