Hello Chris,

CM> I definitely don't want a problem whose frequency and severity is minimized to
CM> be "solved" with something that intrudes on me daily, or lessens the dynamic
CM> nature of development in Squeak, such as having to stop and specify imports.

If the only problem behind pushing namespaces is "colliding names",
then by all means do not implement namespaces.

For example, at our office we implemented namespaces because:

a) the cool promise of being able to partition our application,
b) some vague notions regarding referencing what you shouldn't,
c) avoid renaming two classes of ours because they conflicted with VW
classes

That is NOT enough for the complication we added to our code.  We
didn't partition our application neither have plans to do so in the
next 2-3 years.  We haven't even scheduled cleaning up forward
referencing spaghetti between our existing packages so in theory we
might benefit from namespaces to begin with.  So namespaces to
us are completely useless.

Why don't we ditch them and rename the two classes?  Because we don't
gain much by doing so, then it's not important from a management point of view.

We should have never implemented them.  But now that we've gone
through the effort of overcomplicating our stuff, we don't see the
gain of un-complicating it.

In other words: unless there are extremely important reasons for
namespaces, don't.

My 2 cents...
Andres.