Given the following two function definitions: let func4 l = map (\y -> y+2) (filter (\z -> z `elem` [1..10]) (5:l)) let func4_pf = map (+2) . filter (`elem` [1..10]) . (5 :) which are equivalent, why does the first one have a type of func4 :: (Num a, Enum a) => [a] -> [a] while the second one has a type of func4_pf :: [Integer] -> [Integer] Shouldn't the types be the same?
Am Sonntag 29 März 2009 18:14:00 schrieb Zachary Turner:
Given the following two function definitions:
let func4 l = map (\y -> y+2) (filter (\z -> z `elem` [1..10]) (5:l)) let func4_pf = map (+2) . filter (`elem` [1..10]) . (5 :)
which are equivalent, why does the first one have a type of
func4 :: (Num a, Enum a) => [a] -> [a]
while the second one has a type of
func4_pf :: [Integer] -> [Integer]
Shouldn't the types be the same?
It's the dreaded monomorphism restriction. Since the second is defined without arguments, it looks like a constant and to avoid recomputation, it must have a monomorphic type, except a type signature is given. That monomorphic type is defaulted to [Integer]. If you start ghci with the flag -fno-monomorphism-restriction, it will infer the same general type for the second function, too.
participants (2)
-
Daniel Fischer -
Zachary Turner