| The proposal has this sentence, apparently in reference to using | qualified imports: "This is sufficient, but it is just sufficiently | inconvenient that people don't use it much." Does this mean qualified | imports? I clarified. | One thing I'd really like that this would provide is shorter record | selection. "b.color" is a lot nicer than "Button.btn_color b". Or | would it? It seems like under a TDNR scheme to be able to write | "b.color" I'd have to either import "color" explicitly or go over to | the unqualified import world. Good qn. I added a subsection "Qualified imports" to discuss. | I don't really want to do the latter, | but I also wouldn't want to maintain explicit import lists. Also, as | far as I can see this doesn't provide is nice record update syntax. | If I can write "b.color" I want to be able to write "b2 = b.color := | red"! Yes, well see "Record syntax". Might be doable. | I think this will also lead to either lots of name shadowing warnings | or more trouble picking variable names. The short perspicuous names | this allows are also the most convenient for local variables. I don't | want to suddenly not be able to use a 'color' variable name because | some record has a 'color' field. A record system (and OO languages) | would have no trouble with 'let color = b.color' but as far as I can | see TDNR would have a problem. Good point. I added a subsection "Top-level disambiguation only" | So as far as records, TDNR doesn't seem too satisfactory. I think these points are all addressable, more or less as OO languages do, as mentioned above. Thanks for the suggestions Simon