Section 4.4.3.2 of the 2010 Haskell report says: A simple pattern binding has form p = e. The pattern p is matched “lazily” as an irrefutable pattern, as if there were an implicit ~ in front of it. This makes it sound as though p is a pattern, which I assume means what section 3.17 defines as the non-terminal "pat". pat -> lpat qconop pat | lpat This is further suggested by the explicit mention of ~, which would be redundant if p had to be a var, since variables always match (according to section 3.17.2 rule 1). So my reading of section 4.4.3.2 is that the following is considered a simple pattern binding (because it has no guards): (f, g) = (\x -> x, f) However, section 4.5.5 seems to contradict this. It reads: Recall that a variable is bound by either a function binding or a pattern binding, and that a simple pattern binding is a pattern binding in which the pattern consists of only a single variable (Section 4.4.3). Moreover, it goes on to give an example and explanation: [(n,s)] = reads t ... Hence, when non-simple pattern bindings are used This text makes it sound as though a "simple pattern binding" can have only a single variable to the left of the = sign, meaning: f = \x -> x Further confusing things, GHC accepts the following: g1 x y z = if x>y then show x ++ show z else g2 y x g2 :: (Show a, Ord a) => a -> a -> String g2 | False = \p q -> g1 q p () | otherwise = \p q -> g1 q p 'a' where x = True and infers type: g1 :: (Show a, Show a1, Ord a1) => a1 -> a1 -> a -> [Char] According to 4.4.3.2, g2 definitely does not have a simple pattern binding, as its binding is not of the form p = e where p is a pattern. Yet by section 4.5.5, if g2 were not considered a simple pattern binding, the constrained type variables in the binding group containing g1 and g2 (in particular the inferred type (Show a => a) of z in g1) would not be allowed to be generalized. So is section 4.4.3.2 of the Haskell 2010 report just wrong? Or is GHC allowing code prohibited by the standard? Or am I somehow misreading the standard? Anyway, if someone can provide a less ambiguous definition of the term "simple pattern binding", I would appreciated it, particularly if you can point to support for your definition in the Haskell 2010 report... Thanks, David