Re: [RFC] Function Autoloading (mark 5)

Hi Tim, > On Jul 13, 2026, at 13:04, Tim Düsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> wrote: > > I believe the strict_namespace=1 directive is a sufficiently > unrelated concern - with enormous bikeshedding potential on its own [1], but also sufficient > usefulness on its own - such that I feel it should be its own RFC that is a prerequisite to this > one. It should not be piggy-backed onto function autoloading. I'm good with that. I'll prepare a separate RFC and remove that from the function-autoloading one. > In particular the autoloading gotcha will remain (no autoloading if a matching function > exists), unless the user remembers to set the declare, which isn't much better than the > original proposal. In fairness, that particular gotcha looks to be very rare among the top 1000 packages -- the principle remains, but in practice it appears almost nonexistent. -- pmj