On Mar 31, 2020, at 2:09 PM, Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj@microsoft.com> wrote:

Yes I do. Please do! And, it’s terribly late in the day, but if anyone wants to raise a new issue, please do so.

Done. Tiny changes, but I think they will avoid the mistakes I made in interpretation.

I do wonder about explicitly calling out the possibility of having (a) the syntactic sugar of this proposal with (b) no overloading.   So that
    r.x   desugars to   (x r)
    e { x = e2 }    desugars to   case e of K { .. } -> K { x=e2, .. }
or something like that. That is strictly beyond what the proposal currently does, which is to *always* use setField/getField. But that means that for records with polymorphic fields you simply can’t use the proposal at all.

That is interesting, but I say that it is too late. Effectively, we've accepted this proposal (modulo "what happens next"). You're welcome to write a fresh proposal with that idea. :)