>
> Yes, I like that. And here is some reasoning too:
>
> 1. I really don't like Packages that have "loose classes" in other 
> class
> categories. Or to put it in another way - why would two different
> packages have classes in the same class category? I mean, sure - I can
> construct a case - but isn't it more confusing than helping? I vote for
> a Package to simply be what PI is today - that way it still is strictly
> hierarchical and simple.

But we should be able to add comment and other information to packages.

> 2. Renaming PIs? Perhaps I didn't understand, but what is hard about
> that? Just rename the class cats and the PI - done. Can't see the real
> hard part there, but I have just had my morning coffee and perhaps it
> hasn't kicked in yet. :)	

Apparently you did not try to rename a package having  extensions :)

>
> So... yes, yes, yes. Let's use the current PI. And Alex doesn't have to
> worry - if he brings forward a cool new replacement - fine. We can
> probably easily adopt it.

Yes
Go

> Yeah. Now - just to be short - the nice thing with my Namespace
> implementation was that it didn't change much at all for the programmer
> while still offering quite a few benefits usuallu found in "classic"
> namespaces. And hey - besides a few snafus in the current 
> implementation
> - it WORKS. TODAY. :)


But what are you talking about? Please do not mess up the discussion.

> Now - I stop there. Will come back to that horrible subject another
> time.

Yes please !!!

> Yes, definitely. Lots of parts will need that because lots of parts
> don't have a guru available. Then we just need to chip in all together
> in small nice teams.