> Except, of course, for top level bindings which is where the > monomorphism restriction is usually most noticable. Right, but an explicit monomorphic type signature would ensure that it's computed once. Type signatures on toplevel bindings are a good idea anyway, and there is no ambiguity for implicit parameters which must yield a function-like binding. This is a matter of taste, and Haskell deliberately supports both a style with and without type signatures on top-level bindings. I'd be sorry to see that change. One good reason for NOT giving inferrable type signatures is that including them makes programs less modifiable: a small local change, such as adding a parameter to a type, may force a large number of consequential changes to type signatures. I've seen cases where programmers refrained from a significant improvement, because of the labour required to update type signatures (which had been included, ironically, to disable the monomorphism restriction!). I'm not saying it's bad to give type signatures, just that there are arguments for both styles, and the language ought not to make either one difficult to use. John