The keyword is simple. Basically just moving files around in a (yet to be defined) filesystem structure.
-- AK
Bryan, I believe that this is more your area to work on.
LV: This would be a good place to point to pages for the various package management schemes available, and perhaps an objective pros and cons discussion. I would, for instance, really like see a discussion of why we would not continue to use the currently supported mechanism.
JCW: Would it be an idea to extend the "unknown" handler so it also tries a "package require"? The scenario I'm thinking of is:
foo::bar 1 2 3
When the proc "bar" does not exists *AND* the namespace "foo" does not exist, the "unknown" handler tries a "package require foo" first? With nested naming, i.e. "foo::two::bar" it might even try a "package require foo.two" and then "foo".
My reason for asking is that I find the current options too overwhelming (read: too many ways to do the same, and too many ways to mix package/namespace/filename capitalization). With the above, I'd never explicitly have to use package require again (for my own stuff).
LV: This sure seems reasonable to me. It seems like a conceptual parallel to the interactive mode's ability to try a command as a shell command if it isn't a Tcl command.