Re: [RFC] Strict Namespace Resolution
| From: | Benjamin Außenhofer | Date: | Sat, 18 Jul 2026 18:20:26 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Strict Namespace Resolution | ||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-132013@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Am 17.07.2026, 20:39:00 schrieb Paul M. Jones <pmjones@pmjones.io>:
> Hi all,
>
> 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).
>
In my opinion it makes sense to vote on the concept and then have a
secondary vote on the name.
I‘d argue everyone agrees we need this but with only one option it might
fail.
> Are there any further suggestions or objections on this point?
>
>
> -- pmj
>