Here are some of my thoughts on TCL Namespaces. Here I would like people to put their thoughts on Namespaces. One of the major strengths of TCL, is having minimal concepts - commands and args and composing complex things out of this. One easy way to judge a language's simplicity is to see the number of "special characters" in the language. It seems the namespaces seems to fit into TCL in an inconsistent way. Most of the thing, which are done using infix operator in other languages are done using prefix operator in TCL, to maintain consistency. (Eg. set command is equalavent to = operator).Do we really need a two different concept as Object and Namespace and can we belend those two. Both seems to deal with a way of creating isolated context for procs. Namespaces - introduce a way of showing relationship using infix operator '::'. Is there a way we can have namespace with prefix operator- ? Namespaces create a isolated context for procs and their common data. It seems to have more resemblance with class object. Can we integrate these two. So that we need one mechanism to create context, or object. Class objects, unlike instance objects, will have only one instance and can serve the purpose of namespace. namespace import might become a problem -?. More thoughts are welcome. [vkvalli]