Re: [RFC] Strict Namespace Resolution

Hi Ilija, > On Jul 15, 2026, at 12:57, Ilija Tovilo <tovilo.ilija@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Paul > On 15.07.26 19:48, Paul M. Jones wrote: >> Hi Ilia, > I normally don't correct people on my name, but just to avoid confusion: We now have > myself and Ilia Alshanetsky being active again. Just want to point out that we're two different > people. /me grimaces You are right to correct me. It was a typo on my part; I apologize for failing to catch it before sending. > the value-add of this declaration is very small if the plan isn't ever to deprecate/remove > the old behavior. I can see why some might think that; even so, it is still a valuable addition (however small) even if the old behavior is never removed, in the same way that strict_types is valuable even though the old behavior has not been removed. Further, note that this is an extraction from the function-autoloading RFC; its origin there was due to the shadow-global problem which (thankfully) turns out to be relatively rare. In those rare cases, this directive becomes an option to mitigate the situation. -- pmj