Why does GHC infer a monomorphic type here, even with MonomorphismRestriction disabled?












16















This was prompted by Resolving the type of `f = f (<*>) pure`, which discusses a more complicated example, but this one works too.



The following definition compiles without problem:



w :: Integral a => a
w = fromInteger w


...Of course it doesn't work runtime-wise, but that's beside the question. The point is that the definition of w itself uses a specialised version of w :: Integer. Clearly that is a suitable instantiation, and therefore typechecks.



However, if we remove the signature, then GHC infers not the above type, but only the concrete one:



w' = fromInteger w'


GHCi> :t w
w :: Integral a => a
GHCi> :t w'
w' :: Integer


Well, when I saw this, I was fairly sure this was the monomorphism restriction at work. It's well known that also e.g.



i = 3


GHCi> :t i
i :: Integer


although i :: Num p => p would be perfectly possible. And indeed, i :: Num p => p is inferred if -XNoMonomorphismRestriction is active, i.e. if the monomorphism restriction is disabled.



However, in case of w' only the type Integer is inferred even when the monomorphism restriction is disabled.



To count out that this has something to do with defaulting:



fromFloat :: RealFrac a => Float -> a
q :: RealFrac a => a
q = fromFloat q
q' = fromFloat q'


GHCi> :t q
q :: RealFrac a => a
GHCi> :t q'
q' :: Float


Why is the polymorphic type not inferred?










share|improve this question

























  • Doesn't the monomorphism restriction apply only to simple bindings anyways (and w' = fromInteger w', being recursive, is not simple)?

    – Alec
    Mar 28 at 16:41











  • @Alec possible, but still – why does something like the monomorphism restriction seem to kick in here?

    – leftaroundabout
    Mar 28 at 16:43











  • I'm probably being dense and missing something here, but fromInteger has type (Num a) => Integer -> a, and since w' is used as the input to fromInteger, doesn't that mean Integer is the only possible type for it? Indeed I'm rather surprised that the version with the polymorphic type signature compiles. (So as I said, probably missing something.)

    – Robin Zigmond
    Mar 28 at 16:47











  • @RobinZigmond Integer is certainly the only possible monomorphic type for w', but as w demonstrates a polymorphic type is perfectly fine as well. After all, a polymorphic type can be instantiated to a monomorphic one, provided it fulfills the constraints.

    – leftaroundabout
    Mar 28 at 16:49


















16















This was prompted by Resolving the type of `f = f (<*>) pure`, which discusses a more complicated example, but this one works too.



The following definition compiles without problem:



w :: Integral a => a
w = fromInteger w


...Of course it doesn't work runtime-wise, but that's beside the question. The point is that the definition of w itself uses a specialised version of w :: Integer. Clearly that is a suitable instantiation, and therefore typechecks.



However, if we remove the signature, then GHC infers not the above type, but only the concrete one:



w' = fromInteger w'


GHCi> :t w
w :: Integral a => a
GHCi> :t w'
w' :: Integer


Well, when I saw this, I was fairly sure this was the monomorphism restriction at work. It's well known that also e.g.



i = 3


GHCi> :t i
i :: Integer


although i :: Num p => p would be perfectly possible. And indeed, i :: Num p => p is inferred if -XNoMonomorphismRestriction is active, i.e. if the monomorphism restriction is disabled.



However, in case of w' only the type Integer is inferred even when the monomorphism restriction is disabled.



To count out that this has something to do with defaulting:



fromFloat :: RealFrac a => Float -> a
q :: RealFrac a => a
q = fromFloat q
q' = fromFloat q'


GHCi> :t q
q :: RealFrac a => a
GHCi> :t q'
q' :: Float


Why is the polymorphic type not inferred?










share|improve this question

























  • Doesn't the monomorphism restriction apply only to simple bindings anyways (and w' = fromInteger w', being recursive, is not simple)?

    – Alec
    Mar 28 at 16:41











  • @Alec possible, but still – why does something like the monomorphism restriction seem to kick in here?

    – leftaroundabout
    Mar 28 at 16:43











  • I'm probably being dense and missing something here, but fromInteger has type (Num a) => Integer -> a, and since w' is used as the input to fromInteger, doesn't that mean Integer is the only possible type for it? Indeed I'm rather surprised that the version with the polymorphic type signature compiles. (So as I said, probably missing something.)

    – Robin Zigmond
    Mar 28 at 16:47











  • @RobinZigmond Integer is certainly the only possible monomorphic type for w', but as w demonstrates a polymorphic type is perfectly fine as well. After all, a polymorphic type can be instantiated to a monomorphic one, provided it fulfills the constraints.

    – leftaroundabout
    Mar 28 at 16:49
















16












16








16


2






This was prompted by Resolving the type of `f = f (<*>) pure`, which discusses a more complicated example, but this one works too.



The following definition compiles without problem:



w :: Integral a => a
w = fromInteger w


...Of course it doesn't work runtime-wise, but that's beside the question. The point is that the definition of w itself uses a specialised version of w :: Integer. Clearly that is a suitable instantiation, and therefore typechecks.



However, if we remove the signature, then GHC infers not the above type, but only the concrete one:



w' = fromInteger w'


GHCi> :t w
w :: Integral a => a
GHCi> :t w'
w' :: Integer


Well, when I saw this, I was fairly sure this was the monomorphism restriction at work. It's well known that also e.g.



i = 3


GHCi> :t i
i :: Integer


although i :: Num p => p would be perfectly possible. And indeed, i :: Num p => p is inferred if -XNoMonomorphismRestriction is active, i.e. if the monomorphism restriction is disabled.



However, in case of w' only the type Integer is inferred even when the monomorphism restriction is disabled.



To count out that this has something to do with defaulting:



fromFloat :: RealFrac a => Float -> a
q :: RealFrac a => a
q = fromFloat q
q' = fromFloat q'


GHCi> :t q
q :: RealFrac a => a
GHCi> :t q'
q' :: Float


Why is the polymorphic type not inferred?










share|improve this question
















This was prompted by Resolving the type of `f = f (<*>) pure`, which discusses a more complicated example, but this one works too.



The following definition compiles without problem:



w :: Integral a => a
w = fromInteger w


...Of course it doesn't work runtime-wise, but that's beside the question. The point is that the definition of w itself uses a specialised version of w :: Integer. Clearly that is a suitable instantiation, and therefore typechecks.



However, if we remove the signature, then GHC infers not the above type, but only the concrete one:



w' = fromInteger w'


GHCi> :t w
w :: Integral a => a
GHCi> :t w'
w' :: Integer


Well, when I saw this, I was fairly sure this was the monomorphism restriction at work. It's well known that also e.g.



i = 3


GHCi> :t i
i :: Integer


although i :: Num p => p would be perfectly possible. And indeed, i :: Num p => p is inferred if -XNoMonomorphismRestriction is active, i.e. if the monomorphism restriction is disabled.



However, in case of w' only the type Integer is inferred even when the monomorphism restriction is disabled.



To count out that this has something to do with defaulting:



fromFloat :: RealFrac a => Float -> a
q :: RealFrac a => a
q = fromFloat q
q' = fromFloat q'


GHCi> :t q
q :: RealFrac a => a
GHCi> :t q'
q' :: Float


Why is the polymorphic type not inferred?







haskell recursion type-inference parametric-polymorphism






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 28 at 19:26







leftaroundabout

















asked Mar 28 at 16:35









leftaroundaboutleftaroundabout

80.2k3119237




80.2k3119237













  • Doesn't the monomorphism restriction apply only to simple bindings anyways (and w' = fromInteger w', being recursive, is not simple)?

    – Alec
    Mar 28 at 16:41











  • @Alec possible, but still – why does something like the monomorphism restriction seem to kick in here?

    – leftaroundabout
    Mar 28 at 16:43











  • I'm probably being dense and missing something here, but fromInteger has type (Num a) => Integer -> a, and since w' is used as the input to fromInteger, doesn't that mean Integer is the only possible type for it? Indeed I'm rather surprised that the version with the polymorphic type signature compiles. (So as I said, probably missing something.)

    – Robin Zigmond
    Mar 28 at 16:47











  • @RobinZigmond Integer is certainly the only possible monomorphic type for w', but as w demonstrates a polymorphic type is perfectly fine as well. After all, a polymorphic type can be instantiated to a monomorphic one, provided it fulfills the constraints.

    – leftaroundabout
    Mar 28 at 16:49





















  • Doesn't the monomorphism restriction apply only to simple bindings anyways (and w' = fromInteger w', being recursive, is not simple)?

    – Alec
    Mar 28 at 16:41











  • @Alec possible, but still – why does something like the monomorphism restriction seem to kick in here?

    – leftaroundabout
    Mar 28 at 16:43











  • I'm probably being dense and missing something here, but fromInteger has type (Num a) => Integer -> a, and since w' is used as the input to fromInteger, doesn't that mean Integer is the only possible type for it? Indeed I'm rather surprised that the version with the polymorphic type signature compiles. (So as I said, probably missing something.)

    – Robin Zigmond
    Mar 28 at 16:47











  • @RobinZigmond Integer is certainly the only possible monomorphic type for w', but as w demonstrates a polymorphic type is perfectly fine as well. After all, a polymorphic type can be instantiated to a monomorphic one, provided it fulfills the constraints.

    – leftaroundabout
    Mar 28 at 16:49



















Doesn't the monomorphism restriction apply only to simple bindings anyways (and w' = fromInteger w', being recursive, is not simple)?

– Alec
Mar 28 at 16:41





Doesn't the monomorphism restriction apply only to simple bindings anyways (and w' = fromInteger w', being recursive, is not simple)?

– Alec
Mar 28 at 16:41













@Alec possible, but still – why does something like the monomorphism restriction seem to kick in here?

– leftaroundabout
Mar 28 at 16:43





@Alec possible, but still – why does something like the monomorphism restriction seem to kick in here?

– leftaroundabout
Mar 28 at 16:43













I'm probably being dense and missing something here, but fromInteger has type (Num a) => Integer -> a, and since w' is used as the input to fromInteger, doesn't that mean Integer is the only possible type for it? Indeed I'm rather surprised that the version with the polymorphic type signature compiles. (So as I said, probably missing something.)

– Robin Zigmond
Mar 28 at 16:47





I'm probably being dense and missing something here, but fromInteger has type (Num a) => Integer -> a, and since w' is used as the input to fromInteger, doesn't that mean Integer is the only possible type for it? Indeed I'm rather surprised that the version with the polymorphic type signature compiles. (So as I said, probably missing something.)

– Robin Zigmond
Mar 28 at 16:47













@RobinZigmond Integer is certainly the only possible monomorphic type for w', but as w demonstrates a polymorphic type is perfectly fine as well. After all, a polymorphic type can be instantiated to a monomorphic one, provided it fulfills the constraints.

– leftaroundabout
Mar 28 at 16:49







@RobinZigmond Integer is certainly the only possible monomorphic type for w', but as w demonstrates a polymorphic type is perfectly fine as well. After all, a polymorphic type can be instantiated to a monomorphic one, provided it fulfills the constraints.

– leftaroundabout
Mar 28 at 16:49














1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















19














Polymorphic recursion (where a function calls itself at a different type than the one at which it was called) always requires a type signature. The full explanation is in Section 4.4.1 of the Haskell 2010 Report:




If a variable f is defined without providing a corresponding type signature declaration, then each use of f outside its own declaration group (see Section 4.5) is treated as having the corresponding inferred, or principal type. However, to ensure that type inference is still possible, the defining occurrence, and all uses of f within its declaration group must have the same monomorphic type (from which the principal type is obtained by generalization, as described in Section 4.5.2).




The same section later presents an example of polymorphic recursion supported by a type signature.



My understanding is that unaided type inference is generally undecidable in the presence of polymorphic recursion, so Haskell doesn't even try.



In this case, the type checker starts with



w :: a


where a is a meta-variable. Since fromInteger is called with w as an argument within its own declaration (and therefore within its declaration group), the type checker unifies a with Integer. There are no variables left to generalize.



A slight modification of your program gives a different result for the same reason:



v = fromIntegral v


By your original reasoning, Haskell would infer v :: forall a. Num a => a, defaulting the v on the RHS to type Integer:



v :: forall a. Num a => a
v = fromIntegral (v :: Integer)


But instead, it starts with v :: a. Since v is passed to fromIntegral, it imposes Integral a. Finally, it generalizes a. In the end, the program turns out to be



v :: forall a. Integral a => a
v = fromIntegral (v :: a)





share|improve this answer





















  • 2





    My bachelor was about a simple type inferencer for a subset of Haskell including typeclasses & polymorphic recursion. A very simple approach is to limit the depth of the polymorphic recursion up to k depth. Most useful cases of polymorphic recursion can be inferred with a very low depth bound (like k=1 or k=2). Anyway Haskell type inference is already undecidable so that's not the only reason why it's not allowed. An other reason is probably performance, it surely makes type inference O(k·f(n)) instead of O(f(n)) since you may need to do all over again for k times.

    – Bakuriu
    Mar 28 at 18:25






  • 2





    @Bakuriu, I am pretty sure that Haskell 2010 without polymorphic recursion has full type inference--it's basically Hindley-Milner at that point, plus type classes and defaulting. Do you have a reference saying otherwise? As for some limited recursion depth: that sounds like a potentially useful extension, but it has a very different flavor from what the Haskell Report tends to do. I would find such a feature most useful for discovering the right type signatures for polymorphic recursive code.

    – dfeuer
    Mar 28 at 18:42













  • Yes, but I think all extensions to the type systems on top of Haskell2010 make type inference undecidable. Note that for example Type families are "artificially" limited to avoid undecidable instances by forbidding certain well-formed programs by default, so allowing a "k-recursive" polymorphic recursion would not be very different from that case, IMHO.

    – Bakuriu
    Mar 28 at 19:59











  • @Bakuriu, just for my own curiosity: how much of Data.Sequence could be inferred with bounded polymorphic recursion depth? I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "depth" in this context.

    – dfeuer
    Mar 28 at 21:40






  • 2





    The reason there is no inference for polymorphic recursion is exactly because it’s undecidable. This is a decision from long before ghc gained a lot of other undecidable features. You can trust me on this one, I was on the Haskell committee at that point. :)

    – augustss
    2 days ago












Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55402733%2fwhy-does-ghc-infer-a-monomorphic-type-here-even-with-monomorphismrestriction-di%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









19














Polymorphic recursion (where a function calls itself at a different type than the one at which it was called) always requires a type signature. The full explanation is in Section 4.4.1 of the Haskell 2010 Report:




If a variable f is defined without providing a corresponding type signature declaration, then each use of f outside its own declaration group (see Section 4.5) is treated as having the corresponding inferred, or principal type. However, to ensure that type inference is still possible, the defining occurrence, and all uses of f within its declaration group must have the same monomorphic type (from which the principal type is obtained by generalization, as described in Section 4.5.2).




The same section later presents an example of polymorphic recursion supported by a type signature.



My understanding is that unaided type inference is generally undecidable in the presence of polymorphic recursion, so Haskell doesn't even try.



In this case, the type checker starts with



w :: a


where a is a meta-variable. Since fromInteger is called with w as an argument within its own declaration (and therefore within its declaration group), the type checker unifies a with Integer. There are no variables left to generalize.



A slight modification of your program gives a different result for the same reason:



v = fromIntegral v


By your original reasoning, Haskell would infer v :: forall a. Num a => a, defaulting the v on the RHS to type Integer:



v :: forall a. Num a => a
v = fromIntegral (v :: Integer)


But instead, it starts with v :: a. Since v is passed to fromIntegral, it imposes Integral a. Finally, it generalizes a. In the end, the program turns out to be



v :: forall a. Integral a => a
v = fromIntegral (v :: a)





share|improve this answer





















  • 2





    My bachelor was about a simple type inferencer for a subset of Haskell including typeclasses & polymorphic recursion. A very simple approach is to limit the depth of the polymorphic recursion up to k depth. Most useful cases of polymorphic recursion can be inferred with a very low depth bound (like k=1 or k=2). Anyway Haskell type inference is already undecidable so that's not the only reason why it's not allowed. An other reason is probably performance, it surely makes type inference O(k·f(n)) instead of O(f(n)) since you may need to do all over again for k times.

    – Bakuriu
    Mar 28 at 18:25






  • 2





    @Bakuriu, I am pretty sure that Haskell 2010 without polymorphic recursion has full type inference--it's basically Hindley-Milner at that point, plus type classes and defaulting. Do you have a reference saying otherwise? As for some limited recursion depth: that sounds like a potentially useful extension, but it has a very different flavor from what the Haskell Report tends to do. I would find such a feature most useful for discovering the right type signatures for polymorphic recursive code.

    – dfeuer
    Mar 28 at 18:42













  • Yes, but I think all extensions to the type systems on top of Haskell2010 make type inference undecidable. Note that for example Type families are "artificially" limited to avoid undecidable instances by forbidding certain well-formed programs by default, so allowing a "k-recursive" polymorphic recursion would not be very different from that case, IMHO.

    – Bakuriu
    Mar 28 at 19:59











  • @Bakuriu, just for my own curiosity: how much of Data.Sequence could be inferred with bounded polymorphic recursion depth? I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "depth" in this context.

    – dfeuer
    Mar 28 at 21:40






  • 2





    The reason there is no inference for polymorphic recursion is exactly because it’s undecidable. This is a decision from long before ghc gained a lot of other undecidable features. You can trust me on this one, I was on the Haskell committee at that point. :)

    – augustss
    2 days ago
















19














Polymorphic recursion (where a function calls itself at a different type than the one at which it was called) always requires a type signature. The full explanation is in Section 4.4.1 of the Haskell 2010 Report:




If a variable f is defined without providing a corresponding type signature declaration, then each use of f outside its own declaration group (see Section 4.5) is treated as having the corresponding inferred, or principal type. However, to ensure that type inference is still possible, the defining occurrence, and all uses of f within its declaration group must have the same monomorphic type (from which the principal type is obtained by generalization, as described in Section 4.5.2).




The same section later presents an example of polymorphic recursion supported by a type signature.



My understanding is that unaided type inference is generally undecidable in the presence of polymorphic recursion, so Haskell doesn't even try.



In this case, the type checker starts with



w :: a


where a is a meta-variable. Since fromInteger is called with w as an argument within its own declaration (and therefore within its declaration group), the type checker unifies a with Integer. There are no variables left to generalize.



A slight modification of your program gives a different result for the same reason:



v = fromIntegral v


By your original reasoning, Haskell would infer v :: forall a. Num a => a, defaulting the v on the RHS to type Integer:



v :: forall a. Num a => a
v = fromIntegral (v :: Integer)


But instead, it starts with v :: a. Since v is passed to fromIntegral, it imposes Integral a. Finally, it generalizes a. In the end, the program turns out to be



v :: forall a. Integral a => a
v = fromIntegral (v :: a)





share|improve this answer





















  • 2





    My bachelor was about a simple type inferencer for a subset of Haskell including typeclasses & polymorphic recursion. A very simple approach is to limit the depth of the polymorphic recursion up to k depth. Most useful cases of polymorphic recursion can be inferred with a very low depth bound (like k=1 or k=2). Anyway Haskell type inference is already undecidable so that's not the only reason why it's not allowed. An other reason is probably performance, it surely makes type inference O(k·f(n)) instead of O(f(n)) since you may need to do all over again for k times.

    – Bakuriu
    Mar 28 at 18:25






  • 2





    @Bakuriu, I am pretty sure that Haskell 2010 without polymorphic recursion has full type inference--it's basically Hindley-Milner at that point, plus type classes and defaulting. Do you have a reference saying otherwise? As for some limited recursion depth: that sounds like a potentially useful extension, but it has a very different flavor from what the Haskell Report tends to do. I would find such a feature most useful for discovering the right type signatures for polymorphic recursive code.

    – dfeuer
    Mar 28 at 18:42













  • Yes, but I think all extensions to the type systems on top of Haskell2010 make type inference undecidable. Note that for example Type families are "artificially" limited to avoid undecidable instances by forbidding certain well-formed programs by default, so allowing a "k-recursive" polymorphic recursion would not be very different from that case, IMHO.

    – Bakuriu
    Mar 28 at 19:59











  • @Bakuriu, just for my own curiosity: how much of Data.Sequence could be inferred with bounded polymorphic recursion depth? I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "depth" in this context.

    – dfeuer
    Mar 28 at 21:40






  • 2





    The reason there is no inference for polymorphic recursion is exactly because it’s undecidable. This is a decision from long before ghc gained a lot of other undecidable features. You can trust me on this one, I was on the Haskell committee at that point. :)

    – augustss
    2 days ago














19












19








19







Polymorphic recursion (where a function calls itself at a different type than the one at which it was called) always requires a type signature. The full explanation is in Section 4.4.1 of the Haskell 2010 Report:




If a variable f is defined without providing a corresponding type signature declaration, then each use of f outside its own declaration group (see Section 4.5) is treated as having the corresponding inferred, or principal type. However, to ensure that type inference is still possible, the defining occurrence, and all uses of f within its declaration group must have the same monomorphic type (from which the principal type is obtained by generalization, as described in Section 4.5.2).




The same section later presents an example of polymorphic recursion supported by a type signature.



My understanding is that unaided type inference is generally undecidable in the presence of polymorphic recursion, so Haskell doesn't even try.



In this case, the type checker starts with



w :: a


where a is a meta-variable. Since fromInteger is called with w as an argument within its own declaration (and therefore within its declaration group), the type checker unifies a with Integer. There are no variables left to generalize.



A slight modification of your program gives a different result for the same reason:



v = fromIntegral v


By your original reasoning, Haskell would infer v :: forall a. Num a => a, defaulting the v on the RHS to type Integer:



v :: forall a. Num a => a
v = fromIntegral (v :: Integer)


But instead, it starts with v :: a. Since v is passed to fromIntegral, it imposes Integral a. Finally, it generalizes a. In the end, the program turns out to be



v :: forall a. Integral a => a
v = fromIntegral (v :: a)





share|improve this answer















Polymorphic recursion (where a function calls itself at a different type than the one at which it was called) always requires a type signature. The full explanation is in Section 4.4.1 of the Haskell 2010 Report:




If a variable f is defined without providing a corresponding type signature declaration, then each use of f outside its own declaration group (see Section 4.5) is treated as having the corresponding inferred, or principal type. However, to ensure that type inference is still possible, the defining occurrence, and all uses of f within its declaration group must have the same monomorphic type (from which the principal type is obtained by generalization, as described in Section 4.5.2).




The same section later presents an example of polymorphic recursion supported by a type signature.



My understanding is that unaided type inference is generally undecidable in the presence of polymorphic recursion, so Haskell doesn't even try.



In this case, the type checker starts with



w :: a


where a is a meta-variable. Since fromInteger is called with w as an argument within its own declaration (and therefore within its declaration group), the type checker unifies a with Integer. There are no variables left to generalize.



A slight modification of your program gives a different result for the same reason:



v = fromIntegral v


By your original reasoning, Haskell would infer v :: forall a. Num a => a, defaulting the v on the RHS to type Integer:



v :: forall a. Num a => a
v = fromIntegral (v :: Integer)


But instead, it starts with v :: a. Since v is passed to fromIntegral, it imposes Integral a. Finally, it generalizes a. In the end, the program turns out to be



v :: forall a. Integral a => a
v = fromIntegral (v :: a)






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Mar 28 at 22:02

























answered Mar 28 at 17:14









dfeuerdfeuer

33.7k349133




33.7k349133








  • 2





    My bachelor was about a simple type inferencer for a subset of Haskell including typeclasses & polymorphic recursion. A very simple approach is to limit the depth of the polymorphic recursion up to k depth. Most useful cases of polymorphic recursion can be inferred with a very low depth bound (like k=1 or k=2). Anyway Haskell type inference is already undecidable so that's not the only reason why it's not allowed. An other reason is probably performance, it surely makes type inference O(k·f(n)) instead of O(f(n)) since you may need to do all over again for k times.

    – Bakuriu
    Mar 28 at 18:25






  • 2





    @Bakuriu, I am pretty sure that Haskell 2010 without polymorphic recursion has full type inference--it's basically Hindley-Milner at that point, plus type classes and defaulting. Do you have a reference saying otherwise? As for some limited recursion depth: that sounds like a potentially useful extension, but it has a very different flavor from what the Haskell Report tends to do. I would find such a feature most useful for discovering the right type signatures for polymorphic recursive code.

    – dfeuer
    Mar 28 at 18:42













  • Yes, but I think all extensions to the type systems on top of Haskell2010 make type inference undecidable. Note that for example Type families are "artificially" limited to avoid undecidable instances by forbidding certain well-formed programs by default, so allowing a "k-recursive" polymorphic recursion would not be very different from that case, IMHO.

    – Bakuriu
    Mar 28 at 19:59











  • @Bakuriu, just for my own curiosity: how much of Data.Sequence could be inferred with bounded polymorphic recursion depth? I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "depth" in this context.

    – dfeuer
    Mar 28 at 21:40






  • 2





    The reason there is no inference for polymorphic recursion is exactly because it’s undecidable. This is a decision from long before ghc gained a lot of other undecidable features. You can trust me on this one, I was on the Haskell committee at that point. :)

    – augustss
    2 days ago














  • 2





    My bachelor was about a simple type inferencer for a subset of Haskell including typeclasses & polymorphic recursion. A very simple approach is to limit the depth of the polymorphic recursion up to k depth. Most useful cases of polymorphic recursion can be inferred with a very low depth bound (like k=1 or k=2). Anyway Haskell type inference is already undecidable so that's not the only reason why it's not allowed. An other reason is probably performance, it surely makes type inference O(k·f(n)) instead of O(f(n)) since you may need to do all over again for k times.

    – Bakuriu
    Mar 28 at 18:25






  • 2





    @Bakuriu, I am pretty sure that Haskell 2010 without polymorphic recursion has full type inference--it's basically Hindley-Milner at that point, plus type classes and defaulting. Do you have a reference saying otherwise? As for some limited recursion depth: that sounds like a potentially useful extension, but it has a very different flavor from what the Haskell Report tends to do. I would find such a feature most useful for discovering the right type signatures for polymorphic recursive code.

    – dfeuer
    Mar 28 at 18:42













  • Yes, but I think all extensions to the type systems on top of Haskell2010 make type inference undecidable. Note that for example Type families are "artificially" limited to avoid undecidable instances by forbidding certain well-formed programs by default, so allowing a "k-recursive" polymorphic recursion would not be very different from that case, IMHO.

    – Bakuriu
    Mar 28 at 19:59











  • @Bakuriu, just for my own curiosity: how much of Data.Sequence could be inferred with bounded polymorphic recursion depth? I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "depth" in this context.

    – dfeuer
    Mar 28 at 21:40






  • 2





    The reason there is no inference for polymorphic recursion is exactly because it’s undecidable. This is a decision from long before ghc gained a lot of other undecidable features. You can trust me on this one, I was on the Haskell committee at that point. :)

    – augustss
    2 days ago








2




2





My bachelor was about a simple type inferencer for a subset of Haskell including typeclasses & polymorphic recursion. A very simple approach is to limit the depth of the polymorphic recursion up to k depth. Most useful cases of polymorphic recursion can be inferred with a very low depth bound (like k=1 or k=2). Anyway Haskell type inference is already undecidable so that's not the only reason why it's not allowed. An other reason is probably performance, it surely makes type inference O(k·f(n)) instead of O(f(n)) since you may need to do all over again for k times.

– Bakuriu
Mar 28 at 18:25





My bachelor was about a simple type inferencer for a subset of Haskell including typeclasses & polymorphic recursion. A very simple approach is to limit the depth of the polymorphic recursion up to k depth. Most useful cases of polymorphic recursion can be inferred with a very low depth bound (like k=1 or k=2). Anyway Haskell type inference is already undecidable so that's not the only reason why it's not allowed. An other reason is probably performance, it surely makes type inference O(k·f(n)) instead of O(f(n)) since you may need to do all over again for k times.

– Bakuriu
Mar 28 at 18:25




2




2





@Bakuriu, I am pretty sure that Haskell 2010 without polymorphic recursion has full type inference--it's basically Hindley-Milner at that point, plus type classes and defaulting. Do you have a reference saying otherwise? As for some limited recursion depth: that sounds like a potentially useful extension, but it has a very different flavor from what the Haskell Report tends to do. I would find such a feature most useful for discovering the right type signatures for polymorphic recursive code.

– dfeuer
Mar 28 at 18:42







@Bakuriu, I am pretty sure that Haskell 2010 without polymorphic recursion has full type inference--it's basically Hindley-Milner at that point, plus type classes and defaulting. Do you have a reference saying otherwise? As for some limited recursion depth: that sounds like a potentially useful extension, but it has a very different flavor from what the Haskell Report tends to do. I would find such a feature most useful for discovering the right type signatures for polymorphic recursive code.

– dfeuer
Mar 28 at 18:42















Yes, but I think all extensions to the type systems on top of Haskell2010 make type inference undecidable. Note that for example Type families are "artificially" limited to avoid undecidable instances by forbidding certain well-formed programs by default, so allowing a "k-recursive" polymorphic recursion would not be very different from that case, IMHO.

– Bakuriu
Mar 28 at 19:59





Yes, but I think all extensions to the type systems on top of Haskell2010 make type inference undecidable. Note that for example Type families are "artificially" limited to avoid undecidable instances by forbidding certain well-formed programs by default, so allowing a "k-recursive" polymorphic recursion would not be very different from that case, IMHO.

– Bakuriu
Mar 28 at 19:59













@Bakuriu, just for my own curiosity: how much of Data.Sequence could be inferred with bounded polymorphic recursion depth? I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "depth" in this context.

– dfeuer
Mar 28 at 21:40





@Bakuriu, just for my own curiosity: how much of Data.Sequence could be inferred with bounded polymorphic recursion depth? I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "depth" in this context.

– dfeuer
Mar 28 at 21:40




2




2





The reason there is no inference for polymorphic recursion is exactly because it’s undecidable. This is a decision from long before ghc gained a lot of other undecidable features. You can trust me on this one, I was on the Haskell committee at that point. :)

– augustss
2 days ago





The reason there is no inference for polymorphic recursion is exactly because it’s undecidable. This is a decision from long before ghc gained a lot of other undecidable features. You can trust me on this one, I was on the Haskell committee at that point. :)

– augustss
2 days ago




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55402733%2fwhy-does-ghc-infer-a-monomorphic-type-here-even-with-monomorphismrestriction-di%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

How did Captain America manage to do this?

迪纳利

南乌拉尔铁路局