This is incorrect. Haskell and OCaml both support parametric polymorphism, but Haskell also supports ad-hoc polymorphism, whereas OCaml does not. Modular implicits, it seems, are OCaml&#x27;s solution to the problem of reducing the set of valid types in a polymorphic function.<p>Haskell: concat :: [a] -&gt; [a] -&gt; [a]<p>OCaml: val concat : &#x27;a list -&gt; &#x27;a list -&gt; &#x27;a list = &lt;fun&gt;<p>Both are parametrically polymorphic. However, in Haskell, I can use a type class to support ad-hoc polymorphism:<p>concat :: (Num a) =&gt; [a] -&gt; [a] -&gt; [a]<p>Now concat works forall a, as long as a is an instance of Num. This is important for arithmetic operators:<p>(+) :: (Num a) =&gt; a -&gt; a -&gt; a<p>Now I can have (+) be defined in a meaningful way, since Int, Integer, Float, etc. are all instances of Num, and implement (+). An easy way to think of this (since it&#x27;s all it is, really) is operator&#x2F;method overloading. In Haskell, (+) is overloaded for every type that you would want it to work for (the details of this are actually probably different, but are not important for learning).<p>In OCaml, if I have<p>val (+) : &#x27;a -&gt; &#x27;a -&gt; &#x27;a = &lt;fun&gt;<p>There is actually only two implementations of that function:<p>let (+) a b = a<p>or<p>let (+) a b = b<p>Since I cannot restrict the set of types to the function, I can&#x27;t do anything with the arguments. I don&#x27;t know what the types are! Ad-hoc polymorphism allows for restricting the set of types, which allows for Haskell to use + for any Num-like thing.