On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Peter Hall
Most recent spec was Haskell 2010, as pointed out by someone else. There
is some talk of pushing for a 2014 revision which would include (among other things) removal of the monomorphism restriction — but the standards committee is notoriously conservative, and IIRC argued against that proposal in 2010.
But there has a been a lot of momentum in recent years towards removing it. Aren't we a little optimistic? Presumably the only objection is the feeling that it raises the barrier of difficulty for new implementations?
No. The original reason for it is that one typically gives a constant applicative form (a binding without a function arrow; informally, a "value") a name so that it can be shared — but a polymorphic value cannot be shared. (See, for example, the various tricks for memoizing the Fibonacci series; these rely on the list being shared, both in its own definition and when it is used.) -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allbery.b@gmail.com ballbery@sinenomine.net unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net