Any update on this? @jinzhu

@yaameen I had the same problem mentioned here: #4270 and i solved it with 2 different join tables, i don't know if it solves your problem too, can you share any example?

type Label struct {
	LabeID             uint `gorm:"primarykey"`
        Name               string
}

type Fruit struct {
	gorm.Model
	Labels []*Label `gorm:"many2many:fruit_labels;"`
}

type Vegetable struct {
	gorm.Model
	Labels []*Label `gorm:"many2many:vegetable_labels;"`
}

Actually that's what I miss most with GORM: Real OO-like ploymorphism support
From long years of OOA/-D/-P I consider this situation the most common use case for polymorphism (UML style):
OwningClass [1] <>--- [0..*] AbstractBaseClass
with AbstractBaseClass having several specializations. I.e. for me its not so much about many2many but about having the polymorphism at the n-end of the 1:n relationship. And that's also what I am used to from all those ORM's for C , Java.

As far as I understand GORM the polymorphic type can only be at the 1-end of the relation, right?

if you make an explicit model for your many-to-many relation for A-B (B being the desired polymorphic model), let's call it C, you then have A-C one-to-many and C-B many-to-one and you can use polymorphism. I think it's reasonable to add "polymorphism" to the list of customizations of a join table that warrant making the join table explicit, so this seems like it should be converted to a documentation request rather than a feature request.