[Haskell-cafe] If you'd design a Haskell-like language, what would you do different?

[Ivan Perez]

>> - Function overloading without classes. If it's not done, there must
>> be a good reason for it
>> (many good reasons, probably), but I really miss it.
>
> That does not play well with type inference.

I understand that. But it may be ok in many simple situations,
which is actually where I tend to "need" it. For instance,
the following wouldn't pose a problem, would it?

f  :: Int -> Int -> Int
f = (+)
f :: String -> String -> String
f = (++)

(Not that I would use it for exactly that code, but anyway).
I know that one can write that with classes and instances, but I just
want to save myself the extra-coding when possible. In complex
situations (where it doesn't play well with type inference), that's
when I'd rather create classes and instances. Not for the type-checker,
but for myself.

> Also, see type-directed name resolution (TDNR)
Thanks for that pointer. I found that proposal a few months ago, but had
completely forgotten about it.

I don't really like the proposed syntax; it's very OO-like.
I agree with gabrielrf, who said "[...] I wonder if adding an obj.method
style will be a hinderance to beginners, as it obscures what type
inference can do."