Should one specify a type signature for main or not? Why / why not?

问题

I learned from chapter 9 of Learn You A Haskell For Great Good that

By convention, we don't usually specify a type declaration for main.

As far as I can tell, this convention is widespread. However, if I compile, using the -Wall flag, a program that lacks a type signature for main, such as

-- test.hs

-- main :: IO ()
main = print (1 :: Int)

GHC does issue a warning:

$ ghc -Wall test.hs
[1 of 1] Compiling Main             ( test.hs, test.o )

test.hs:2:1: Warning:
    Top-level binding with no type signature: main :: IO ()
Linking test ...
$

I'm confused... If a type signature for main is indeed superfluous, why would -Wall cause GHC to complain when it's missing? Are there good reasons (aside from getting rid of that warning) for specifying main's type anyway?

回答1:

Well, generally speaking, as that warning makes clear, it's always a good idea to give top-level bindings a type signature. In fact, it would be more reasonable to say

By convention, we do specify a type declaration for everything¹.

Certainly, in a big project, main itself makes up a neglectable effort, so it really doesn't make any sense to omit the signature. Just write it out, for sake of consistency.

However, though Haskell is great for properly structured projects and actually there's a tendency to write almost everything in libraries, it's also surprisingly good as a quick scripting language, for stuff other people would write in Python or Perl. And in those cases, you generally don't care that much about safety and good documentation etc., you just want to quickly write down something as concise as possible that does the job. You also normally don't compile those scripts with -Wall but just execute them with runhaskell. And as scripts always need to contain a main (unlike most other Haskell source files), it is indeed sensible enough to omit the signature here.

I'd still suspect that the majority of Haskellers nowadays do write main::IO() even in the simplest scripts, if just out of habit.

---

¹_{Only everything on the top-level, that is. Local signatures sometimes do make sense as well, but often they rather clutter the code.}

回答2:

It's actually a very good idea to write a type signature for main, since otherwise if you get too fancy trying to write things in point-free form, you can end up with main of type IO (IO ()). This is accepted (the language standard says main just has to have some type of the form IO a) but the "inner IO action" that is the result of main will just be discarded, which is almost certainly not what you wanted (you probably wanted to join it).

来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29538610/should-one-specify-a-type-signature-for-main-or-not-why-why-not