Re: [RFC] Strict Namespace Resolution

On Fri, July 17 2026 at 12:39, Paul M. Jones wrote: > Primary pushback thus far has not been on the functionality per se but on the directive name > itself. The currently-suggested equivalent alternatives are: > > strict_namespace=1            (RFC as-is) > legacy_name_fallback=0        (R. Tommins) > global_fallback=0             (T. Düsterhus) > disable_root_ns_fallback=1    (A. Rock) > > Of those, I'd be OK with global_fallback=0 (though I do > still prefer strict_namespace=1). > > Are there any further suggestions or objections on this point? Hi Paul, Thank you for working on this RFC! It's essentially the same as my declare(root_fallback=0) idea from 2019. [1] I think the global_fallback=0 alternative from Tim indicates the resulting behavior most clearly, but I don't have a strong preference between this and strict_namespace=1. -Theodore [1]: https://externals.io/message/105757