Issue #21385 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). From the latest suggestions, I think `Realm` and `Context` are the best, since the feature about creating multiple sets of top-level constants/isolating them. Since it is a low-level API I think nesting under `Ruby::` would be good, and that avoids the conflicts as in #21341. I would say this feature isn't about namespaces, it's about semantically having a separate `Object` class and everything referenced from it. IOW, it's quite similar to creating a clean new Ruby interpreter with no visible sharing. The sharing is only an internal optimization/implementation detail, it should be transparent, if it's not it's a bug (because it then breaks the isolation and likely the use cases of this feature). In fact I think we should support implementations of this feature which do not use any internal sharing, so this feature could e.g. also be supported on TruffleRuby by using subinterpreters under the hood. Additionally this feature also supports communication and cross-references, that's also possible with subinterpreters (e.g. by proxying calls). From this high-level description I think it's clear `Realm` and `Context` are good names for this feature. ---------------------------------------- Misc #21385: Namespace: Suggesting a rename https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21385#change-113617 * Author: fxn (Xavier Noria) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to suggest a rename of namespaces. The word "namespace" is already taken in Ruby. We say that classes and modules act as or represent namespaces. Constant paths nest them in practice. We say that it is a best practice that gems create their own namespace, etc. If the feature goes ahead with this name, the above sentences, well-established in the Ruby community, will start to sound confusing, because that meaning of "namespace" stays. If you look at the index in Matz's book, "namespaces" is indexed in pages 248–250. Title of section 7.5.1 is "Modules as Namespaces". Besides, I have had a few experiences explaining the proposal to people, and quickly realizing they assume this is something like C++ namespaces or Java packages. Then, I have to undo that mental model and start all over saying "forget that mental model". Those are like our constant paths, only more simple and strict. I think it may also be confusing in this sense (though this could be OK if it wasn't for the previous point.) To be constructive: Some alternative names that I have thought about are "isolates", "shields", or "cells". ("sandboxes" is close, but may have security connotations you do not want to suggest.) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/