Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> 
> That may sound a bit like me trying to stifle the discussion. Not at all.
> 
> Actually, I'd very much appreciate a competing proposal. Like, one that 
> does not require a syntax change but still remains readable. Or one that 
> does not require browser magic to transform the fully qualified names to 
> short names. I'd just like to see any claims of superiority supported by 
> something tangible to evaluate ;)
> 
> - Bert -


Hello,
I have followed the discussion and would like to chime in.
What I have understood so far is that the proposal makes
it possible to separate the namespace name from the class
name by using a separator in the "traditional" class name.

How about having a class method that tells me what the
prefix of the class name is? It could do so by guessing,
or I can explicitly specify the prefix if I like to
do so, by implementing the method myself. Of course it has
to be consistent with the "traditional" class name, i.e.
the class name must really start with the prefix return
by this method.

Thanks,
Wolfgang