I agree that omitting the type rarely, if ever, makes the code more readable.
But readability can easily matter less than other things over the course of one compile. This is why I think the best choice is demanding top level annotations for reasonably complete code (say, every commit) and not doing so before I can ask for the shape of something, or see that it outputs what I thought, or run my tests, or see what type errors I get elsewhere.
It might be marginally better to demand it by default and have a flag to disable the check. Demanding it always is more than marginally worse (which is not to say it's the end of the world - it's totally not).
Yeah, when the effort put into inserting types is higher cost than reading them (as with short lived / unstablized code), what you're saying makes sense.
Which is kind of why I wish for tooling outside the compiler to make the effort in specifying types (when it increases readability, maybe based on heuristics) very minimal. Wishful thinking.
Well, the warning from ghc gives you the inferred type, which can be helpful. Copying it in place blindly is not advised - it won't break, but something more specific might be better. And of course the compiler has no way of getting inferring what choice of type aliases will be most (correctly) communicative.
But readability can easily matter less than other things over the course of one compile. This is why I think the best choice is demanding top level annotations for reasonably complete code (say, every commit) and not doing so before I can ask for the shape of something, or see that it outputs what I thought, or run my tests, or see what type errors I get elsewhere.
It might be marginally better to demand it by default and have a flag to disable the check. Demanding it always is more than marginally worse (which is not to say it's the end of the world - it's totally not).