On 2001-02-16T07:56:42+0000, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
> > > test2 = apply [int 3] (apply [(+)::Int->Int->Int] [int 5])
> The monomorphism restriction bites again. A variable binding without
> a type signature is monomorphic...
But, but, but... The type *is* monomorphic, in the sense that it can
only be test :: Int, test2 :: [Int]... *sob*
Then again, this is a conclusion that can only be reached after
dependencies in type classes are taken into account. Given that
dependencies are an experimental feature, does this count as a bug?
Or should the monomorphism restriction be taken to mean, as Hugs seems
to do, "monomorphism after unification, as in standard Haskell"?
> ghc and nhc98 can be told to ignore the monomorphism restriction.
Thanks!
--
Edit this signature at http://rodimus.digitas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/ken/sig
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day
they start making vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge
PGP signature
