Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Modification to record dot syntax propsal

I do think that reusing the record update syntax for the overloaded monomorphic update is a mistake---it is not something I had noticed during our original discussion.

This is the one reason I can see for cutting this extension in smaller pieces. But, then again, -XOverloadedRecordUpdate would be a fork-like extension. Generally, I'm not in favour in proposals which split extensions though: we already have so many extensions. Are the reasons for this split strong enough? I haven't had time to dig into the details. I'm not sure that not having the design of the proposal quite finalised is a good reason, extensions mutate in their first iterations, I don't think that it's a problem.