Hi Richard,

Thanks for answering. I have made a tiny change to GHC in a fork that lifts the monomorphization restriction but only for implicit params. See this commit: https://gitlab.haskell.org/rowanG/ghc/-/merge_requests/1/diffs?commit_id=35fcad2d7f556706dd129a57815abe421a559861

Is there some example I could run to see in action why the monomorphisation restriction is required? I looked at the Haskell report and I don't immediately see why the points raised apply to implicit params. I get a feeling that monomorph(Contains only a concrete type like Int or Bool) implicit params would never be a problem and maybe only polymorphic ones are?

Rowan Goemans

On Mar 24, 2022, at 9:04 AM, rowan goemans <goemansrowan@gmail.com> wrote:

is this by design/expected though?

It is by design, yes. With a sufficiently nuanced expectation, I would also say it's expected. (Though, to be fair, if I were not primed to be thinking about the monomorphism restriction, I can't honestly say I would get it right if quizzed.)

Would there be interest in fixing this in GHC?

Figuring out when to generalize a local binding is a hard problem. So, there is definitely interest in finding a better way to do it, but I don't think anyone knows a design that meets the most expectations. Language design is hard! :)

Richard