I asked this below question on Stack Overflow https://stackoverflow.com/questions/44714711/silly-duplicated-record-fields-... and I got an answer suggesting that GHC doesn't support type inference of overloaded record fields. But I'm wondering why this is the case. Consider the following: {-# LANGUAGE DuplicateRecordFields #-} data A = A { name :: String } data B = B { name :: String } main = print $ name (A "Alice") When compiled, I get the following message (on GHC 8.0.2) duplicatedrecords.hs:7:16: error: Ambiguous occurrence ‘name’ It could refer to either the field ‘name’, defined at duplicatedrecords.hs:5:14 or the field ‘name’, defined at duplicatedrecords.hs:3:14 But if I modify the main line as follows: main = print $ name ((A "Alice") :: A) Compilation proceeds successfully. I'm not sure why I need the :: A here, it seems to be clear that (A "Alice") is of type A due to the A constructor. It's worth noting that the following compiles fine: data A = A { a_name :: String }data B = B { b_name :: String } class Name t where name :: t -> String instance Name A where name = a_nameinstance Name B where name = b_name main = print $ name (A "Alice") We can even go further as follows, allowing different result types: {-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies #-} data A = A { a_name :: String }data B = B { b_name :: Int } class Name t where type family T t name :: t -> T t instance Name A where type T A = String name = a_name instance Name B where type T B = Int name = b_name main = print $ name (A "Alice") It seems like GHC just has to mechanically add a class for each unique record name and an instance for each record in each data type. This will mean however that name x == name y not implying that the types of x and y are the same but I'd expect that when using this extension anyway. Just wondering if there's anything tricky I'm missing here regarding the implementation or that it just needs someone to implement it?