I'm a little bemused by the whole discussion. Smalltalk already has
namespaces. Classes, with their class variables, are namespaces for their
hierarchy (one binding per name per hierarchy). Pools are namespaces which
are importable at will (one binding per name per pool per class).

Clearly, the system could be extended. Fully qualified names might be
allowed (Pool::Variable syntax is already supported in IBM Smalltalk).
Redefinition (re-binding) of class variables for a sub-hierarchy might be
allowed. Pool imports for a method might be allowed. Inherited pools might
be added. Namespaces might be allowed to (selectively) inherit other
namespaces.

But I wonder if these extensions are even required to address the current
namespace-related issues/problems being discussed.

What am I missing?

Peter