I'm guessing this is sarcastic, but I just want to clarify what I understood Henning's proposal to be.  He's not saying we should provide an `o` function in the standard library, but rather encourage users to define their own.  This one liner would take the place of the current line that they devote right now to `OverloadedStrings` .

However, the analogy is still apt since the exact same line of reasoning applies to overloaded numeric literals where we currently rely on defaulting to solve this problem.