OK, so from this part of the discussion I am convinced to not use any 
kind of prefix. So you'll see some new names before I put a version out 
on Squeakmap.

On Tuesday, Jul 22, 2003, at 23:10 Europe/Zurich, Daniel Vainsencher 
wrote:

> 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
>
>
Roel Wuyts                                                   Software 
Composition Group
roel.wuyts at iam.unibe.ch                       University of Bern, 
Switzerland
http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~wuyts/
Board Member of the European Smalltalk User Group: www.esug.org