Steven, I think you're mixing two things in one:
In your previous response in this thread you said:
"we've now set out along the path of renaming every one of the more than TWO THOUSAND names in our Tcl api, FOR NO GOOD REASON"
And further in another response you claim that "Quite clearly, in the thread which you yourself started when you asked "should I put my procs under namespaces or not?" Don confirmed Yon's yes answer, and they're not the only ones. If that's not a (bunch of) official statements, then what is?"
You should notice that these are two different things, in my view, and that you're putting them in the same bag as if they belonged in the same bag: 1) Naming of FUTURE procs 2) *Renaming* *current* procs.
In the thread which you mention I started I asked what should I name for the _new_ packages I'm building. The answer to that was "use namespaces".
Then the ad_parameter question came along (also by me) and the issue of _renaming_ of the API came along, and it's _that_ issue that I said that nobody has said "YES, let's rename the whole toolkit to namespaces". And I'll say it again, I've not yet seen anyone saying that we should rename the whole toolkit API as you are claiming. What I have seen is people saying "Yes, use namespaces for your new packages".
There's an issue coding of standards to be resolved here, but I'll leave that for another thread.
