Namespaces again

Okay, I've come to realize that it really helps if I'm clear about 
what I want, which kinda requires being clear about what I want.
There are two things in the namespaces I'm concerned about.

First are the actual objects one grabs out. Variables, sub objects, 
class objects -- actual "stuff". Languages seem to fall into two 
categories -- those that group subroutines in with data and those 
that don't. (Most generally do)
Second there's the structure of the namespace. I really do want 
Foo::Bar to be handled with a Foo entry in the top-level namespace, 
and a Bar entry in the Foo namespace, and nothing that anyone does to 
any Foo "object" at the top level can damage that.
The fact that the Foo class has an object named Foo at the top level 
which you can fool with is separate from the fact that there's a Foo 
*namespace* at the top level. Using a filesystem analogy, I want to 
have a directory and file named Foo, with file operations not 
touching the directory, and directory operations not touching the 
file.
It seems like the simplest thing to do is to have a *real* unified 
system and go with a prefix or suffix scheme for namespaces that the 
namespace ops automatically pre/post-pend on the names. If we do 
that, I'm up for the NUL character, since we're pretty safe in 
assuming that nobody allows NULs in their identifier names.
--
                                Dan

--------------------------------------it's like this-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
dan@xxxxxxxxx                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk