"Visitor" has always bothered me too. If you look it up it's tons and tons of text to describe "pass in a function and descend a graph calling it on each node."
It gives you a way to "add a method" to a set of classes without actually stuffing them in the class definitions themselves.
In practice, most visitor patterns are used with AST classes or other types that are stored in a tree-like fashion, but that's coincidence. The visitor pattern itself is really about using virtual dispatch to avoid an ugly and non-type-safe type switch.
No, it's one word: visitor. That's the point, we can now avoid saying "pass in a function and descend a graph calling it on each node" and instead simply say visitor and everyone knows what we mean without the big long explanation.
...but going back to my original point, isn't it more valuable to have a common vocabulary, meaning that I can say "visitor" rather than "pass in a function and descend a graph calling it on each node"?
Also, the naming of the pattern, along with implementation, may push people to copy a design that would be the best way to do it in C++ or Java ca. 2000 but unnatural in whatever they're working in.