[Haskell-cafe] Type inference for lambda function

[Richard Eisenberg]

I'd be against just making it a warning. It means that you'd get a warning every time you have `let n = 3` in your code. Killing the MR without a warning is even worse: it means you'd silently get re-evaluation every time you have `let n = m1 + m2` in your code.

I will note that GHC supports -Wmonomorphism-restriction, which is exactly the warning that is requested in this thread, for those that want it.

Richard

> On Nov 3, 2021, at 8:46 PM, Andreas Källberg <anka.213 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Changing it into a warning might not be a bad idea at all. It is a common problem for beginners after all. The only risk is if it would force you to write a lot more type signatures in order to avoid the warning.
> 
> Another option would be to improve error messages around it so ghc can suggest either adding an explicit type signature or disabling the restriction. This might be difficult to implement though, since the error usually happens when type checking something else.
> 
>> On 1 Nov 2021, at 15:10, Ben Franksen <ben.franksen at online.de> wrote:
>> 
>> Am 01.11.21 um 06:10 schrieb Viktor Dukhovni:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 12:54:47AM -0400, David Feuer wrote:
>>>> It would silently change behavior of some programs, yes. It could also make
>>>> them slower under some circumstances. But anyone relying on the
>>>> monomorphism restriction to choose types for their program should change
>>>> their ways regardless. Top level type signatures aren't that hard to write.
>>> It isn't just, or even primarily top level signatures.  It is more often
>>> let bindings that will lack a signature, and frankly I'd rather have
>>> the restriction in place.
>>> When your type fails to generalise and code does not compile, the
>>> solution is not hard to find.  When let-bound expressions cease
>>> to be CAFs, and start being evaluated repeatedly, rather than
>>> just once, that's substantially harder to find and diagnose.
>> 
>> Good point. I have a question, since the wording in the Haskell 2010 Report is pretty complicated:
>> 
>> Is it really guaranteed that a declaration of the form
>> 
>> var = closed_expr
>> 
>> (where closed_expr contains no free variables) without a type signature compiles to a CAF? I.e. is evaluated only once?
>> 
>> Assuming this is is the case I admit there is justification for the MR.
>> 
>> Other solutions are possible, though, for instance the compiler could issue a warning, ideally together with a hint that you may want to add a type signature to make your intention clear: either you want a CAF or the most general type; you can't have both.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Ben
>> -- 
>> I would rather have questions that cannot be answered, than answers that
>> cannot be questioned.  -- Richard Feynman
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>> Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.