2008/5/18 Peter Verswyvelen :

In Haskell, I sometimes have to annotate code with type info because the type-inferer otherwise fails (even with -XNoMonomorphismRestriction). Surely, most of the time this is because I was writing buggy code, but sometimes, type annotation just seems needed to get a successful compilation (luckily not as often as in C# 3.0)

Then you must either be programming using extensions or you have found a bug. Haskell 98 should never require annotations (modulo monomorphism). In particular with either higher rank polymorphism or GADTs, full inference is undecidable, so it is perfectly reasonable to have to put a few annotations here and there.

It seems some new papers appeared regarding this, e.g. http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/boxy

Is this work being incorporated into GHC?

IIRC that work is already in 6.8. I can't be sure though.

Unfortunately I'm not able to read those papers, so I'm not really sure what it means anyway and what implications (example code?) it would have ;-)

There are some type inference algorithms (Colored Local Type Inference of Scala comes to mind) which can infer quite a lot, but it is pretty difficult to tell when it won't be able to. The main contribution of the FPH is an algorithm which is predictable in that respect. From the paper: "FPH ... has the following delightfully simple rule for when a type annotation is required: a type annotation may be required only for a let-binding or lambda-abstraction that has a non-Damas-Milner type" Here the paper is only referring to higher-rank polymorphism, so its interaction with other extensions can still be tricky. Essentially non-Damas-Milner types are the ones that you wouldn't be able to write down in Haskell without the 'forall' keyword; the ones whose quantification is somewhere besides the top level. Do you have an example of code that required an annotation to compile? Luke