** Synopsis **

A (mostly) better alternative to [namespace ensemble]:

====
oo::object create stash 
oo::objdefine stash {
    variable Stash
    method set {name val} {
        set Stash($name) $val
    }
    method get {name} {
        return $Stash($name)
    }
}
====

A few things are noteworthy:

  * we didn't define a [class]!  [TclOO] lets us define [methods] directly on any object.
  * methods don't get in the way of command resolution inside the object:  we ca

** Rationale **

Historically, [namespace ensemble]s have been plagued with one [wart%|%Tcl Warts]:  command resolution starts in the ensemble's namespace.  Thus, subcommands with names like `set` are problematic:

====
namespace eval stash {
    proc set {name val} {
        variable Stash
        set Stash($name) $val
    }
    proc get {name} {
        variable Stash
        return $Stash($name)
    }
    namespace export *
    namespace ensemble create
}
====
This example will fail, because `stash set` accidentaly calls itself!  This can be worked around by using `::set`, but such changes are ugly.  And not just cosmetically:  try extending an existing ensemble with a `set` method, or gracefully using [namespace path].

[TclOO] provides a neat solution to this:  simply use an object.

** TODO **

Nested ensemble objects (hint: [oo::objdefine forward]).
More rationale?
Link some of the wart discussions here for a solution (and clean them up).

** See Also **

  * [TclOO Tricks], where this concept appears as a "Singleton".
  * [Inspecting TclOO] is handy to see exactly what's defined on your object.
  * [Extending TclOO with metaclasses] might be relevant.
  * [namespace] and [namespace ensemble] talk about some of these issues.
  * [Object method ensemble] is a different thing, but may be useful in conjunction.

<<categories>>TclOO Example