Re: Monomorphism

[Ralf Hinze]

One of the original motivations for questioning the DMR steems from the
fact that function definitions expressed as simple pattern bindings are
sometimes rejected. The definition

        sum as = foldr (+) 0 as

is accepted but

        sum = foldr (+) 0

is not which is admittingly irritating. Couldn't the compiler silently
eta-expand the second definition into the first thus turning a simple
pattern binding into a function binding?

Ralf