Bernard James POPE
Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:34:23 +1000 (EST)
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA, writes:
> Is there a point to the "monomorphism restriction" in GHC and Hugs? In
> practice, all it seems to mean is "occasionally require unnecessary
> explicit type signatures".
I think the point is made clearly enough in section 4.5.5 of the Haskell 98
language report, you can find it at www.haskell.org. Whether you are
satisified with this explanation is another matter.