It sounds silly, but I can't get it. Why can the expression [] == [] be typed at all? More specifically, which type (in class Eq) is inferred to the type of list elements?
In a ghci session, I see the following:
Prelude> :t (==[])
(==[]) :: (Eq [a]) => [a] -> Bool
But the constraint Eq [a]
implies Eq a
also, as is shown here:
Prelude> (==[]) ([]::[IO ()])
<interactive>:1:1:
No instance for (Eq (IO ()))
arising from use of `==' at <interactive>:1:1-2
Probable fix: add an instance declaration for (Eq (IO ()))
In the definition of `it': it = (== []) ([] :: [IO ()])
Thus, in []==[], the type checker must assume that the list element is some type a that is in class Eq. But which one? The type of [] is just [a], and this is certainly more general than Eq a => [a].
IMHO this should by ambiguous, at least in Haskell 98 (which is what we are talking about)
Ambiguous type variable `a' in the constraint `Eq a' arising from a use of `=='
– kennytm[] == []
typeEq a => Bool
. – sdcvvc[] == []
is there? Without specializing[]
themselves. – Dan M.