> Note that the previous post with the DNU stuff etc was not a "serious"
> proposal. It was just brainfood. :) I think having classes act as
> Namespaces is a bit strange - just like Roel pointed out.

Are we sure about this, or it is just our prejudice ?

My background of Smalltalk has always lead me to undestand that 'object 
responding to messages' is the seminal idea. (quotes ?)

The interpretation of an oo system as classes with a compiler and a vm 
invoking the resultant compiled methods is merely the current 
implementation which get us to the _idea_ of live objects respnind gto 
messages.

Take Andreas's objects-as-compiled methods stuff: many would dfind that 
just as strange.

Taken this way (I must find the quote :)), the 'Foo Bar baz' syntax is the 
natural syntax and the Foo::Bar stuff less consistent.

Regards

Brent