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
