[Haskell-cafe] Haskell's type inference considered harmful

[oleg at okmij.org]

>    1. Haskell's type inference is NON-COMPOSITIONAL!

Yes, it is -- and there are many examples of it. Here is an example
which has nothing to do with MonomorphismRestriction or numeric
literals

{-# LANGUAGE ExtendedDefaultRules #-}

class C a where
    m :: a -> Int

instance C () where
    m _ = 1

instance C Bool where
    m _ = 2

main = do
       x <- return undefined
       let y = x
       print . fst $ (m x, show x)
       -- let dead = if False then not y else True
       return ()

The program prints 1. If you uncomment the (really) dead code, it will
print 2. Why? The dead code doesn't even mention x, and it appears
after the printing! What is the role of show x, which doesn't do anything?

Exercises: what is the significance of the monadic bind to x? Why
can't we replace it with "let x = undefined"?

[Significant hint, don't look at it]

Such a behavior always occurs when we have HM polymorphism restriction 
and some sort of non-parametricity -- coupled with default rules or
overlapping instances or some other ways of resolving overloading. All
these features are essential (type-classes are significant,
defaulting is part of the standard and is being used more and more).