- Function overloading without classes. If it's not done, there must be a good reason for it (many good reasons, probably), but I really miss it.
That does not play well with type inference.
I understand that. But it may be ok in many simple situations, which is actually where I tend to "need" it. For instance, the following wouldn't pose a problem, would it? f :: Int -> Int -> Int f = (+) f :: String -> String -> String f = (++) (Not that I would use it for exactly that code, but anyway). I know that one can write that with classes and instances, but I just want to save myself the extra-coding when possible. In complex situations (where it doesn't play well with type inference), that's when I'd rather create classes and instances. Not for the type-checker, but for myself.
Also, see type-directed name resolution (TDNR) Thanks for that pointer. I found that proposal a few months ago, but had completely forgotten about it.
I don't really like the proposed syntax; it's very OO-like. I agree with gabrielrf, who said "[...] I wonder if adding an obj.method style will be a hinderance to beginners, as it obscures what type inference can do."