> Right, after having looked at your code I realized that.  But
>
> Squeak::Object subclass: #'Tweak::Object'
>     ...
>
> would work at least, right?

Well, not in the way I wanted it to ;-) I really hate the idea of writing
this kind of stuff unless I'm forced to...

> > self import: A::Foo as: #Foo.
> > self import: A::Bar as: #Bar.
> > self import: A::Mumble as: #Mumble.
>
> <snip>
>
> Convinced, I think.  But namespaces are hierarchical, right?

They could be but I'm not convinced they should automatically provide access
to all of the names from their parent space. I see hierarchies here as an
organization principle not a mechanism for composition.

> So you can still reference objects in your parent namespace without
> qualifying them?  Since surely we won't be constantly using
> (Squeak::Array new: 10), etc.

We could easily solve that problem by having

    self import: Squeak::Object as: #Object
    self import: Squeak::Array as: #Array
    ...

being executed when we create a namespace.

> > Sent it in another mail already. Oh, and do you realize that the
> > same "naming scheme" can be applied to selectors? Say having message
> > Foo::bar vs. Mumble::bar ;-)
>
> Yup, I mentioned that earlier.  But since there's no equivalent to
> #bindingOf: for selectors, that's less immediately useful.

Sure there is - it's called Symbol>>hasInterned:ifTrue: ;-)

Cheers,
  - Andreas