I don't hope so. :)
I see a tendency of functional programmers to use abbreviated names all the time; I guess this somehow derives from the higher terseness of functional syntax in general and a historical acceptance for abbreviations.
While over time there seems to have been achieved some common sense about using meaningful, unabbreviated names for functions/methods/variables and all the like (though sometimes a bit overboarding), the area of functional programming does not seem to have adapted that.
IMHO, some the "typical" function names to be found in languages as LISP, Haskell, Ocaml, aso. are horrible. While admirably terse for the knowing wizard, they have to be learned by the beginners, who, in most cases, won't be able to guess the meaning of a function by it's name. I have to admit, though, that there are enough functions, where I could not think of a name that would truly describe what the function does - higher order functions, like map and fold_left are good examples.
Some renamings (mostly de-abbreviations) I would suggest to make life easier for beginners might be:
- fst -> first
- snd -> second
- hd -> head
- tl -> tail
- mem -> contains
- assoc -> associate
- ...
I know how this would upset the community of traditional functional programmers, and that this would be an all too great change to the library to really consider doing that, but looking from the perspective of a C#-convert, I guess I would shake my head at the sight of such names, and I do: my personal all-time-favourite is the "assq"-function.