Programming is communicating with a machine and communicating with others (including your future self) who reuse, adapt, and extend your program. This proposed namespace keyword and functionality clearly communicates to the machine that library names should not be shared with the user's names. To the human, it clearly communicates the author's intention to have separate names. It reuses the existing syntax and layout, making adoption trivial for existing libraries: namespace bosl2_threading {   using bosl2_utility;   using bosl2_skin;   using bosl2_attachable;   using bosl2_lists;   using bosl2_shapes3d;   module generic_nut() {...} // Exact same code as before indented once } With object() as namespaces, the namespace names share the assignment/variable environment, still causing collisions. The syntax requires rewriting the code to function literals instead of `function` keyword definition and wait for module literals to be implemented before then rewriting all `method` definitions and every reference to other libraries must be individually updated: bosl2_threading = object(   generic_nut = module() {     // Make assignments for every single module and function declared in bosl2_threading:     all_positive = bosl2.utility.all_positive; first_defined = bosl2.utility.first_defined; linear_sweep = bosl2.skin.linear_sweep;     attachable = bosl2.attachable.attachable;     in_list = bosl2.lists.in_list;     cyl = bosl2.shapes3d.cyl;     // Rest of the existing code   } } A draft PR is under way <https://github.com/openscad/openscad/pull/6131>. I expect to have it working in 1.5 weeks or sooner. In the next couple days I should have `using` working; at that point others can start playing with it if desired. Technical discussion is happening on the original Namespace Issue <https://github.com/openscad/openscad/issues/522>. This isn't exclusive with whether to treat `object` as a limited form of OO with `this`. - Cory Cross