I see Simon PJ's comment here https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/6#issuecomment-277971802 and the lengthy discussions from different advocates. How much is it true there's a fractured "Haskell ecosystem" with 2 (3?) incompatible approaches: * H98 style labelled records with various extensions to ease the pain. * newtype-wrapped Lenses * 'raw' (unwrapped) Lenses Can you mix those three styles inside one program? How much pain does it cause? Can you import libraries with a mix of styles? How does a program cope? I see the plethora of operators Lenses come with (mostly to keep the types coherent?). Except that Lens composition is plain function composition (.). I remember something from SPJ's video/lecture on Lenses: that having Lens composition turn out to be function composition is "cute". That suggests to me it's more of a happy accident than a necessary feature. I also see in the ORF proposal, OverloadedLabels part, that composing with Control.Category.(.) can lead to type ambiguity. I wonder: Could there be a dedicated operator for composing Lenses, that has the same semantics as (.), but a more specialised type? To strengthen type inference/reduce ambiguity. AntC