> Ah yes, I hadn't considered expanding this RFC to namespaced and global > constants. Let me mull over implementation syntax for those and include > them in the RFC. My initial reaction is to not include those in this RFC, > keeping the scope to just class constants. If there is value in typing > namespaced and global constants, then another RFC could add those. >
Yes, it could be simply a mention in a "Future scope" (or even "Unaffected functionality") section (and the syntax could indeed be a problem, like for typed local/global variables...) > Once I have all these new issues figured out and the RFC updated, I'll > start that new thread. > Looking forward to it =)
