I've looked at the proposal, and you will see it.  Today you wouldn't
because there are no namespaces and thus no conflicts.

I agree we need namespaces, I just think we can do better, both in
looks and in functionality.  It's nothing against Goeran, just as I
told him, I think his Delta's thing is right on the money.  I just
think this is really going to "give us only enough rope...."

On 9/18/07, Ramon Leon <ramon.leon at allresnet.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On
> > Behalf Of Jason Johnson
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:10 AM
> > To: Ron at usmedrec.com; The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> > Subject: Re: Quick comparison of two Namespaces proposals
> >
> > Oh no, are people really so strongly for ::?  It make source
> > code look absolutely awful.  The period looks a thousand
> > times better, but I don't think there is a non-ambiguous way to do it.
> >
>
> Maybe you should look at Gorans proposal first.  In general, :: would
> separate the prefix from the class name in such a way that the tools can
> hide Kernel:: except when there's ambiguity, or in file outs.  Formalizing
> prefixes that we all currently do by convention anyway while keeping the
> simplicity of a single global namespace and avoiding the need for imports.
> It's actually a nice proposal and :: doesn't look bad at all, since you'll
> hardly ever see it.
>
> Ramon Leon
>
>
>