**See the official user manual for the most up-to-date version of the information on this page.**

It is possible to omit terms that the type checker can figure out for itself,
replacing them by `_`

. If the type checker cannot infer the value of an
`_`

it will report an error. For instance, for the polymorphic identity
function

` ``id : (A : Set) -> A -> A`

the first argument can be inferred from
the type of the second argument, so we might write `id _ zero`

for the
application of the identity function to `zero`

.

We can even write this function application without the first argument. In that case we declare
an **implicit function space**:

` ``id : {A : Set} -> A -> A`

and then we can use the notation `id zero`

.

Another example:

_==_ : {A : Set} -> A -> A -> Set subst : {A : Set}(C : A -> Set){x y : A} -> x == y -> C x -> C y

Note how the first argument to `_==_`

is left implicit. Similarly we may
leave out the implicit arguments `A`

, `x`

, and `y`

in an application of
`subst`

. To give an implicit argument explicitly, enclose in curly
braces. The following two expressions are equivalent:

subst C eq cx subst {_} C {_} {_} eq cx

It is worth noting that implicit arguments are also inserted at the end of an application, if it is required by the type. For example, in the following, `y1`

and `y2`

are equivalent.

y1 : a == b → C a → C b y1 = subst C y2 : a == b → C a → C b y2 = subst C {_} {_}

When no type signature is given, the implicit arguments are not applied; thus, `y3`

and `y4`

are also equivalent to each other (but not to `y1`

and `y2`

).

y3 : {x y : A} -> x == y -> C x -> C y y3 = subst C y4 = subst C

Finally, less intuitively, `y5`

is also possible and equivalent to `y3`

and `y4`

.

y5 : {x y : A} -> x == y -> C x -> C y y5 = subst C {_} {_}

It is also possible to write lambda abstractions with implicit arguments. For example, given `id : (A : Set) -> A -> A`

, we can define the identity function with implicit type argument as

id' = \ { A } -> id A

Implicit arguments can also be referred to by name, so if we want to give the
expression `e`

explicitly for `y`

without giving a value for `x`

we can write

subst C {y = e} eq cx

When constructing implicit function spaces the implicit argument can be omitted,
so both expressions below are valid expressions of type
`{A : Set} -> A -> A`

:

\ { A } x -> x \ x -> x

The `forall`

syntax for function types also has implicit variants:

forall {x : A} -> B is the same as {x : A} -> B forall {x} -> B is the same as {x : _} -> B forall {x y} -> B is the same as forall {x} -> forall {y} -> B

There are no restrictions on when a function space can be implicit. Internally, explicit and implicit function spaces are treated in the same way. This means that there are no guarantees that implicit arguments will be solved. When there are unsolved implicit arguments the type checker will give an error message indicating which application contains the unsolved arguments. The reason for this liberal approach to implicit arguments is that limiting the use of implicit argument to the cases where we guarantee that they are solved rules out many useful cases in practice.