The unintentional infinite list

The other day I was happily hacking away at some Haskell code. Same thing as always: think hard at about how to represent my problem in Haskell, then type the code quickly enough. Then launch my HUnit test. Tests doesn't return, just seem to be looping for ever!! Uh oh.
So I check my code, all the foldr and foldl and such, to make sure nowhere I create an infinite sequence. Nothing. So I took a deep breath and started the ghci debugger. I'm used to graphical debugger (like Java in Eclipse) but hey I managed to pretty quickly locate the offending function. Only a typo that couldn't be caught by the compiler. Since it's not the first time this has happened to me, here it is:
I tend to not be too comfortable with big one liner functions, so I revert often to several lines after a let instruction to cleanly separate each step of the computation. So when I repeatedly change some structure I tend to get:

fn a =
   let
       a1=fn1 a
       a2=fn2 a1
   in fn3 a2

and the typo there was a line like:

    a2 = fn2 a2

So I had typed in a2 instead of a1, and the compiler was perfectly happy, I wanted to create an infinite list, right? Er... That wasn't exactly my intention.
So I fixed the typo. Then ran my test. Which passed. Of course.

Me and my compiler

Pfiuu, long time no post, between my day time work, playing with Haskell and Lispy things (cool sutff like Clojure) and my extra-programming activities (yes, yes)...
I was just thinking about dynamically vs statically typed languages, since there is a lot of discussion about that on the web these days. For example, this article talks about refactoring in both static and dynamic languages. Well, I'm not a huge fan of all the refactoring utilities Eclipse give me, but there's one feature I use a lot: you know, when I change something, like the return type or the arguments of a method, my IDE helpfully adds little red crosses on all the source files that won't compile any more. So then I go through them and adapt the code.
Of course in a dynamically typed language I wouldn't get that, but since everybody has 100% code path coverage in their unit tests, it's just deferring the red cross marking a bit lower than the chain, right? Well, at work it takes 30 minutes to build our whole software from SVN (and only a few seconds to rebuild one individual module from inside Eclipse), and several hours to unit test everything (and have we got 100% test coverage?), so... Methinks I'll stick with something that can check that my types are coherent for me when I work on big projects...