Paul Govereau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a great example, thanks for posting it. However, I feel like
> the real problem in this example is the lexically-scoped type
> variables declared with your function f. I am always surprised by the
> effects that lexically-scoped type variables can have on top-level
> declarations.
I remain unpuzzled by your examples, could I ask you to elaborate?
> Consider another example:
>
> f :: a -> a
> f = \x -> x
>
> Of course, f has type (forall a. a -> a).
Yes.
> However, if we add another declaration g with lexically-scoped type
> variable a:
>
> g :: a -> a = \x -> 1
>
> Then, suddenly, f has type Integer -> Integer
Well, you say that the parameter and return value have the same type
a, and I suppose Haskell monomorphs the constant 1 to Integer. Did you
perhaps mean:
g :: a -> a = \x -> x
which has type () -> () ?
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
