This is also the reason we have the convention in Scala as well - the inference to partially apply the type works in a certain way. But I agree with the parent post, a more descriptive name would be better.
Right; ostensibly you could create a language that lets you easily poke holes in any slot of a type, but I'm not sure you necessarily /gain/ a lot in doing so except for confusion. It would take a lot more convolution to specify types and instances for every function application.
