When I go looking for abstractions to reuse, I am less likely to reuse
one that has a namespace prefix because it is "proclaiming" to be
non-generic. So especially for classes that abstract something that may
be widely useful, it is important to not discourage reuse in this way.

Thinking about KCP stuff that is going into the image, I think it should
definitely not use "namespace" prefixes.

Daniel

Avi Bryant <avi at beta4.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Doug Way wrote:
> 
> > I'm not sure if I would go quite that far.  The KCP code is somewhat
> > different than external packages like Magma.  With KCP, you're working
> > on classes which will be at the core of Squeak, so I think it is good to
> > not use gratuitous prefixes in the class names, because there's not
> > really any worry about namespace clashes.  With an external package like
> > Magma, using prefixes (e.g. MagmaCollection) may not be a bad idea,
> > since there is a more real possibility of namespace clashes if you
> > don't.  Within reason, of course.
> 
> I've always used namespace prefixes in my Squeak work, and never had any
> complaints about it - how else could you be sure you're not in conflict
> with someone else?
> 
> In fact, Cees and I recently started a "prefix registry" on the Swiki to
> further reduce the possibility of clashes:
> http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3318