The dreaded M-R
simonmar at microsoft.com
Fri Jan 27 04:51:37 EST 2006
On 26 January 2006 16:07, John Hughes wrote:
> Simon Marlow wrote:
>> I wonder if there's an alternative solution along these lines:
>> - We use ParialTypeSignatures to make bindings monomorphic:
>> x :: _
>> x = (+1)
>> - we make it a static error for a variable bound by a simple pattern
>> binding ("x = e") to be overloaded, unless a type signature is
>> given. The error message would explain the problem, and how to
>> fix it. Alternatively, we make it a strong warning.
>> It seems to me that the partial type signatures extension provides a
>> lot of bang for the buck - it gives us a way out of the MR in
>> addition to partial type signatures.
> I don't like this. Once students start dropping type signatures (which
> they do
> pretty soon for local variables in where-clauses), they would
> sometimes-- unpredictably as far as they're concerned--get an error
> message telling them they must put one back in again, but it's enough
> to write x :: _. Can
> you imagine
> explaining to an average student in the first year why they MUST put
> in a type signature, but it doesn't need to include a type???
Understood, but what about when the student writes '=' instead of ':='
by mistake - most of the time it'll work! But occasionally they fall
foul of the reason we had the MR in the first place. Presumably the
compiler should emit a noisy warning, but continue anyway? Won't that
How about an even simpler solution:
*All* pattern and variable bindings are monomorphic unless a type
signature is given.
I wonder how much code this would break? It can't be too bad, because
John is suggesting using := for variable bindings everywhere as a
starting point. Also, SML users live with something very similar. How
often do we really need polymorphism in a variable or pattern binding?
I'm guessing probably not that often, because by far the most common use
of polymorphism is in functions. You lose if you write
mymap = map
mynil = 
and then try to use those at more than one type, but I'm guessing that's
quite rare, and you can still give a type signature. I'd be very
interested to tweak this in GHC and see how much code still passes the
More information about the Haskell-prime