I think we need to discuss putting named objects in 5.0. We need to study the impact on existing packages. Will they be invisible to packages that don't care about names now? Can we delay modifying individual packages to be derived from named_objects until later?
Unfortunately (or, I suppose, fortunately depending on who is reading this) 5.0 is going to be driven by its delivery date. We need a beta release fairly early in July. This date's driven by .LRN 2.0, because the University of Heidelberg's committed to using .LRN 2.0 this fall, and they've provided most of the funding for localization and external authentication that they need in order to use it. They've helped fund the project so we need to perform and deliver them useful software in the timeframe previously agreed to.
If named objects can't slip in invisibly, I don't forsee us having the time to rewrite all our standard packages (and to provide upgrade scripts) in the given timeframe. Keep in mind we've committed ourselves to another needed big-time change: the NOQUOTE patch. We'd put this one off for at least a year so, if endless delay times are some sort of qualification criteria, NOQUOTE "deserved" to be slotted ahead of named objects.
Timo - if you want to write up some thoughts about how we might slip in named objects in the given timeframe, feel free and I'll also look into it.
Worst case is we push for named objects in 5.1 in, say, late summer early fall (release, we'd shove it into HEAD earlier.) I do believe this is the right approach, it's just a matter of timing and schedule.
