I find modules namespacing to be a more elegant solution than prefixed field names. (I haven't played around with lenses for this kind of use, enough.) It's just a shame that Haskell doesn't have an in-file syntax for modules like, say, OCaml but each module needs to put into a separate file.
I do too. I also tend to find that once I have a module for a particular record type, I eventually find enough other things to put in it, like instance declarations, that it's not a hardship to have a separate file.
Yes, it's not a hardship, but it does raise the threshold for doing the Right Thing. Quite unnecessarily in my humble opinion, since OCaml provides an example of how to add this feature to the language without colliding with any of Haskell established concepts. (I don't know about collision with the existing syntax, but you'd enable the modules like any other extention with a pragma.)
Do you know whether Template Haskell could be contorted to provide a syntax?
