And Namespaces should also each have their own independent Symbol Table,
so that objects from different Namespaces can interact without possibility of
conflict (Symbols from different Namespaces could then have the same
characters, but still not be ==.  And it works for message selectors, too!).  

I agree with the rest of your excellent post (it essentially mirrors what I've 
thought for years).

--Alan

> ** Original Sender: Hans-Martin Mosner <hm.mosner at cityweb.de>
> For Collage, I've pondered the question of Namespaces deeply and came to the
> following conclusion:
> Classes should have a 'namespace interface' like in VW5i. It just makes a lot
> of sense.
> Namespaces should subsume Smalltalk, Undeclared and all the shared pools.
> Namespaces should be hierarchical, with Smalltalk as the root.
> Namespaces should be able to import other Namespaces completely (just as
> Classes import shared pools now).
> Namespaces should be prominently visible in the Browser, being categorized just
> like Classes.
> 
> Questions are:
> Should Namespaces implicitly include all variables of their enclosing
> Namespaces?
> What about variable initializers? I don't really like them; would rather like
> to have declarations only.
> What about selective variable imports? Perhaps with renaming?
> 
> Hans-Martin
> 


>** --------- End Original Message ----------- **

>