Typo in example code? #24
Description
Is this supposed to say bimap instead of bipure? It doesn't make much sense with bipure, as <<$>> is aliased to identity, and therefore you would be applying the bifunctor directly to x. However, the text specifically refers to bipure, so I'm a bit puzzled about what's going on here.
It could also work as bipure f g <<*>> x <<*>> y, but then it wouldn't make sense as example code for <<$>>.