Re: [RFC] Strict Namespace Resolution

Hi Theodore, > On Jul 17, 2026, at 16:41, Theodore Brown <theodorejb@outlook.com> wrote: > > 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] Ah so -- my bad for not including it in the prior art on this RFC. > 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. Very good! -- pmj