RE: "Global" top-level name proposal

Back in July, I sent a message (http://haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2001-July/000221.html) proposing a "Global" top-level name as a better solution to certain problems in the definition of the "User" hierarchy. I've heard/seen no response. Perhaps the proposal message got overlooked due to summer vacations. What do folks think of the proposal?

I saw the proposal. Basically, I don't have any strong opinions on the matter - your scheme fixes up some possible sources of ambiguity, but then you also end up with an extra level in the hierarchy for "User"-distributed libraries. I dunno. Cheers, Simon