Hi

>> - I personally don't like the "." notation for namespaces, especially
>>> since we already use "." for statement separation. I still think  
>>> "::" is
>>> the best I have seen, although granted - this is a tiny, tiny  
>>> detail.
>>
>> Meh. I like the dots; they look tidy. If you can give me a good  
>> reason not
>> to use them then I'm happy to change.
>
> A *good* reason? Hehe, not really. I don't recall the details in
> lexer/parser etc - adding support for $: inside global names was  
> rather
> simple - I have no idea if it is just as simple with $.
>
> My reasoning behind :: was that it "stands out" in the syntax - you  
> will
> not accidentally mistake it for something else. The "." is IMHO not  
> at all
> as clear. For example, what does this code say:

And its known from the ruby language. I like the :: notation
I went from ruby to squeak and I like both.

just my 2 cent
Enno