Folks, Iavor has made two excellent points, upon which I have been ruminating (and consulting). Consider module Foo( M.Ix( index ) ) where import qualified Ix as M( Ix ) import qualified Ix as T( index ) instance M.Ix MyType where index a = ... index v = ... -- A local declaration Notice that: * The Ix class is in scope as "M.Ix", but its index method is in scope ias "T.index". * Nevertheless, it's 100% clear what we mean in the instance declaration * It's also 100% clear what we mean in the export list M.Ix( index ) (The report is currently silent about whether this is legal.) * These two situations are very similar, and should be resolved in the same way * I think we all agree that it woudl be illegal to mention the 'range' method of the Ix class, either in the instance cecl, or in theexport list. Why? Because 'range' is not imported. I therefore want to propose: 1. "subordinate" names in export lists are always unqualified Thus, we can have M.Ix( index ), but not M.Ix( T.index ). 2. A subordinate name in an export list is legal if the entity (class operation or data constructor) is in scope in the module, regardless of whether it is in scope under a qualified or unqualified name. (In the example, T.index.) 3. The exact same rule is used to determine whether the class method name on the LHS of an instance-decl binding is legal. This time I have implemented the rule first, and it seems fine. These are basically clarifications. Objections? Comments? I'd like to find a better wording for (2) above. Simon