qualified-operators.md

-# Proposal: Change the syntax of qualified operators
+# Proposal: [QualifiedOperators](qualified-operators)
+
+<table><tr><th> Type    </th>
+<th> change 
+</th></tr>
+<tr><th> Status  </th>
+<th> discussion 
+</th></tr>
+<tr><th> Owner   </th>
+<th> Simon Marlow 
+</th></tr>
+<tr><th> Section </th>
+<th> Lexical Syntax 
+</th></tr>
+<tr><th> Dependencies </th>
+<th></th></tr>
+<tr><th> Related      </th>
+<th> replaces [QualifiedIdentifiers](qualified-identifiers) and [CompositionAsDot](composition-as-dot)</th></tr></table>
+
+## Compiler support
+
+<table><tr><th> GHC   </th>
+<th> full (`-XNewQualifiedOperators`) 
+</th></tr>
+<tr><th> nhc98 </th>
+<th> none 
+</th></tr>
+<tr><th> Hugs  </th>
+<th> none 
+</th></tr>
+<tr><th> UHC   </th>
+<th> none 
+</th></tr>
+<tr><th> JHC   </th>
+<th> none 
+</th></tr>
+<tr><th> LHC   </th>
+<th> none 
+</th></tr></table>
+
+## Summary
+
+
+Change the syntax for qualified operators from `Prelude.>>=` to `Prelude.(>>=)`.
+
+## Description
 
 
 The problem is that right now, qualified operators are written like
@@ -63,3 +108,7 @@ You might argue that it is inconsistent to allow ``(+)`` but not allow `(`plus`)
 
 
 This proposal simplifies the story for composition: we don't have to worry about whether you need a space after `Prelude..`.  Also, `Prelude.(.)` is much easier to read.   The only disadvantage I can see is that it could break some code, but probably very little.
+
+## References
+
+## Report Delta
\ No newline at end of file