Doug Way <dway at riskmetrics.com> wrote:
> > Squeak system, everytime we wish to refer to a class that is in a
> > module, we would need to use something like one of the above examples?
> > I hope I have misunderstood!  I think that would be horrible.
 
> Well, I mostly agree, but explicit module path naming wouldn't necessarily 
> have to be used most of the time, ...

Thank you.  That (largely) allays my fears.

I am mostly familiar with Dolphin.  Its package system mostly stays out
of my way, which is where I like it.  I think it does not allow loading
a package if it contains a class with the same name as a class already
present in the image.  This seems perfectly fine to me.

So, my "vote" is to err, if it be an error, on the side of simplicity
rather than on the side of complexity.  After all, we don't want Squeak
to become another Eiffel, do we?  We already have a full name spacing
facility with regard to method names and that gives us all we need (and
far more than 80%, for the 80/20 fans, of whatever any additional name
space complexity could ever hope to provide).


-- Frank