constructors are bound automatically when binding the type. Lists are not required to be level polymorphic; List : Set → Set is also accepted. As with booleans, the effect of binding the LIST built-in constructors are bound automatically when binding the type. Maybe is not required to be level polymorphic; Maybe : Set → Set is also accepted. As with list, the effect of binding the MAYBE built-in is Example usage: N-ary functions In Agda without cumulativity, it is tricky to define a universe-polymorphic N-ary function type A → A → ... → A → B because the universe level depends on whether the number

constructors are bound automatically when binding the type. Lists are not required to be level polymorphic; List : Set → Set is also accepted. As with booleans, the effect of binding the LIST built-in constructors are bound automatically when binding the type. Maybe is not required to be level polymorphic; Maybe : Set → Set is also accepted. As with list, the effect of binding the MAYBE built-in is Example usage: N-ary functions In Agda without cumulativity, it is tricky to define a universe-polymorphic N-ary function type A → A → ... → A → B because the universe level depends on whether the number

constructors are bound automatically when binding the type. Lists are not required to be level polymorphic; List : Set → Set is also accepted. As with booleans, the effect of binding the LIST built-in constructors are bound automatically when binding the type. Maybe is not required to be level polymorphic; Maybe : Set → Set is also accepted. As with list, the effect of binding the MAYBE built-in is Example usage: N-ary functions In Agda without cumulativity, it is tricky to define a universe-polymorphic N-ary function type A → A → ... → A → B because the universe level depends on whether the number

constructors are bound automatically when binding the type. Lists are not required to be level polymorphic; List : Set → Set is also accepted. As with booleans, the effect of binding the LIST built-in constructors are bound automatically when binding the type. Maybe is not required to be level polymorphic; Maybe : Set → Set is also accepted. As with list, the effect of binding the MAYBE built-in is Example usage: N-ary functions In Agda without cumulativity, it is tricky to define a universe-polymorphic N-ary function type A → A → ... → A → B because the universe level depends on whether the number

constructors are bound automatically when binding the type. Lists are not required to be level polymorphic; List : Set → Set is also accepted. As with booleans, the effect of binding the LIST built-in Types from Agda Using Haskell functions from Agda Using Agda functions from Haskell Polymorphic functions Level-polymorphic types Handling typeclass constraints JavaScript FFI Compiler Pragmas There are a -> a idAgdaApplied :: a -> a idAgdaApplied = idAgdaFromHs () Polymorphic functions Agda is a monomorphic language, so polymorphic functions are modeled as functions taking types as arguments. These

constructors are bound automatically when binding the type. Lists are not required to be level polymorphic; List : Set → Set is also accepted. As with booleans, the effect of binding the LIST built-in Types from Agda Using Haskell functions from Agda Using Agda functions from Haskell Polymorphic functions Level-polymorphic types Handling typeclass constraints JavaScript FFI Compiler Pragmas There are a -> a idAgdaApplied :: a -> a idAgdaApplied = idAgdaFromHs () Polymorphic functions Agda is a monomorphic language, so polymorphic functions are modeled as functions taking types as arguments. These

constructors are bound automatically when binding the type. Lists are not required to be level polymorphic; List : Set → Set is also accepted. As with booleans, the effect of binding the LIST built-in Example usage: N-ary functions In Agda without cumulativity, it is tricky to define a universe-polymorphic N-ary function type A → A → ... → A → B because the universe level depends on whether the number Types from Agda Using Haskell functions from Agda Using Agda functions from Haskell Polymorphic functions Level-polymorphic types Handling typeclass constraints JavaScript FFI Compiler Pragmas There are

constructors are bound automatically when binding the type. Lists are not required to be level polymorphic; List : Set → Set is also accepted. As with booleans, the effect of binding the LIST built-in Example usage: N-ary functions In Agda without cumulativity, it is tricky to define a universe-polymorphic N-ary function type A → A → ... → A → B because the universe level depends on whether the number Types from Agda Using Haskell functions from Agda Using Agda functions from Haskell Polymorphic functions Level-polymorphic types Handling typeclass constraints JavaScript FFI Compiler Pragmas There are

constructors are bound automatically when binding the type. Lists are not required to be level polymorphic; List : Set → Set is also accepted. As with booleans, the effect of binding the LIST built-in Example usage: N-ary functions In Agda without cumulativity, it is tricky to define a universe-polymorphic N-ary function type A → A → ... → A → B because the universe level depends on whether the number Types from Agda Using Haskell functions from Agda Using Agda functions from Haskell Polymorphic functions Level-polymorphic types Handling typeclass constraints JavaScript FFI Compiler Pragmas There are

constructors are bound automatically when binding the type. Lists are not required to be level polymorphic; List : Set → Set is also accepted. As with booleans, the effect of binding the LIST built-in Example usage: N-ary functions In Agda without cumulativity, it is tricky to define a universe-polymorphic N-ary function type A → A → ... → A → B because the universe level depends on whether the number Types from Agda Using Haskell functions from Agda Using Agda functions from Haskell Polymorphic functions Level-polymorphic types Handling typeclass constraints JavaScript FFI Compiler Pragmas There are