This is pure speculation, inspired in part by Brent Yorgey's blog post[1] from a few weeks ago. I'm wondering if it might be possible, in theory, to have both open and closed variants for each of value-level functions, type functions, and classes, in a fairly analogous way. (Maybe you could even have open (G)ADTs, which you would then need open functions to match on; or maybe a closed one with a case for _ to ensure exhaustiveness.) In each case you'd have the closed variant requiring you to keep all the definitions in the same module, permitting overlap, and trying to match definitions in the order they're listed; whereas the open variant would let you have definitions across modules, would forbid overlap (or would require definitions to be equivalent where they overlap, as with type families), and would always select the uniquely matching definition. Open value-level functions with this scheme would be inherently partial, which is bad. (It's not a problem at the type level because you just get a compile error if nothing matches, but an exception at runtime isn't so nice.) As a solution, perhaps it might be possible to allow a limited form of overlap (or don't even call it overlap) for the open variants: a default "use this is if nothing else matches" definition (which would need to be in the same module as the original class / type family declaration, or whatever ends up being analogous for open value-level functions, maybe the type signature). That way you could use Maybe for open value-level functions and make the default Nothing, among other options. Overlap in type functions allegedly makes typechecking unsound; I don't know if that would also hold in this more limited case. This would definitely break the property where adding or removing an import can't change the behaviour of a program other than whether it compiles, which is considered very important by many [2], so maybe it's not a good solution. (Possibly you could add explicit import/export control for instances/other-open-things to alleviate this, in a way so that definitions for open thingies with default definitions (at least) would always have to imported explicitly, thereby acknowledging that it might change behaviour... or maybe that would be a bandaid too far, I dunno.) (I think this would also cover most (if not all?) of the use cases for OverlappingInstances, which permits overlap and selects the most specific instance in a more general fashion; but maybe that doesn't matter if the two are equally bad, I don't know. I'm not 100% clear on peoples' opinion of OverlappingInstances, but I as far as I know the problems are twofold: both import-unsafeness, and the matter of how you would actually define "most specific" in a way that's both rigorous and intuitive; this would remove at least the latter.) Anyway, thoughts? Is this all completely crazy and way out there? [1] http://byorgey.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/typed-type-level-programming-in-hask... [2] http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/wiki/LanguageQualities -- Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.