Should 'use default namespace' reach into 'class' and 'interface' definitions

[jeffdyer]

Use case:

use default namespace Ast;
class Name { var ns; var id; function Name... }
// another program
var n = new Ast::Name ...;
n.id  // reference error, need n.Ast::id

This seems incongruent with packages, which effectively set a default namespace at the top level of the package only, and revert to 'public' => Public "" and 'default' => Internal package namespace inside of a class definition.

See also: #81

Jd

[jeffdyer]

Making RefImpl? bug because that's probably the best context in which to work out the solution, and I'm not sure there is a proposal that says what should happen anyway.

Jd