I did comment, my original stance was:

I would prefer to keep the desugaring exactly as it is (albeit limited for some use cases) and have qualified literals manage scoping only. Trivial to explain. Not as powerful.

As you (Simon) said today on the github thread, QualifiedStrings etc. are an easy win, while the new desugarings offer more power but the gain-to-pain ratio is arguably unfavourable.

However, I do acknowledge this is a tricky one to judge. The difference in desugaring is small and hidden for most users, while it would enable some nice use cases for some. Splitting out extensions for the sake of orthogonality is also arguably adding more complexity. So I find it hard to have a clear opinion on this one.

Cheers
Simon


On Tue, 9 Sept 2025 at 09:58, Simon Peyton Jones <simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Simon, Jakob, Malte, Moritz, Matthias

As you will know, there has been quite a bit of discussion around the GHC proposal for Qualified Literals. But (unless I have missed your contributions) you have not yet contributed to the discussion.  As a member of the GHC Steering Committee, especially when there are tricky judgement calls to make (as in this case) I would really appreciate your input.  
Brandon has now split his proposal into three.  I have outlined options in this comment.

I feel that we owe the proposer some guidance on the way forward, and we can only do that if we all pay attention, rather than leaving it to Sebastian.   (Thanks Sebastian!)

thank you!

Simon