I mean yes, it's the same as in most OOP languages, but isn't it also bad? There must be a better way...
Is there any alternative approach to name collisions coming?
I think we should start considering what problem we're actually solving (the "record problem"), and where all solutions inevitably converge toward when it comes to name resolution: ad-hoc overloading. In particular, I think OverloadedLabels is a bad solution, and every other special-case solution is similarly going to be bad. My opinion is and has always been: just allow type-directed name resolution in Haskell. All naming problems would go away instantly without any awkward, inconsistent extensions that need new syntax and heavy type-level machinery to work. C++ is doing it. Every OOP language is doing it. They do it, because it's useful and convenient. Let's do it, too! AND PLEASE not the way an [existing proposal] suggests to do it! Please let's just do ad-hoc overloading. There is no reason to introduce new syntax, because syntax is completely orthogonal to this problem. [existing proposal]: https://prime.haskell.org/wiki/TypeDirectedNameResolution Greets ertes