| the concrete proposal is to address one of these remaining issues, | namely how to identify record field labels as such. for that, I outlined | three options, although that outline perhaps wasn't concrete enough: | | 1. make label declarations unneccessary (eg., #pointX :: #PointX) | | 2. make type sharing expressible (something like the sharing | constraints in Standard ML's module language, to allow you to | say when two declarations from different imports refer to the | same type) | | 3. introduce a least upper bound for shared label imports | (so A and B could just 'import Data.Label(pointX)', which | would magically provide the shared declaration for pointX) Thanks for the clarifications. But I am still in the dark. I have literally no clue about *exactly* what your suggestions would entail. What would the effect on the type system of (1) be? Or (2) -- is it just a name-space issue or is it something to do with types. Or (3) -- I have even less clue here. Sorry to be dense Simon