PROPOSAL: Fully-qualified names to extend overload sets

[Russell Lewis]

Russell Lewis wrote:
> Likewise, when you *use* the symbol, you are accessing the entire 
> overload set (including the add-ons).  (NOTE: Since the original module 
> doesn't know about any of its add-ons, you are only overloading using 
> the things that you have defined using your imports.  See example below.)

Let me restate this in a better way (I really struggled to explain it in 
my original post):

The idea is that when you use an unqualified name, this name is mapped 
by the compiler to some fully-qualified name (basically like current 
overload sets work).  We then calculate the set of possible overloads as 
if the user had used the fully-qualified name.

Of course, just like the current overload sets design, if there is any 
ambiguity, then the compiler produces an error.