@@ -712,6 +712,7 @@ peps/pep-0833.rst  @dstufft
 peps/pep-0835.rst  @ilevkivskyi
 peps/pep-0836.rst  @savannahostrowski @Fidget-Spinner @brandtbucher
 peps/pep-0838.rst  @AlexWaygood
+peps/pep-0840.rst  @jeremyhylton @gvanrossum
 # ...
 peps/pep-2026.rst  @hugovk
 # ...
 
@@ -0,0 +1,185 @@
+PEP: 840
+Title: Name Resolution in Class Namespaces
+Author: Jeremy Hylton <jeremy@python.org>,
+        Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org>
+Discussions-To: https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-840-name-resolution-in-class-namespaces/108166
+Status: Draft
+Type: Standards Track
+Created: 15-Jul-2026
+Python-Version: 3.16
+Post-History: `16-Jul-2026 <https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-840-name-resolution-in-class-namespaces/108166>`__
+
+
+Abstract
+========
+
+There is a long-standing inconsistency in the way variable names are
+resolved in classes.  Several alternatives to resolve this
+inconsistency are discussed.
+
+Movtivation
+===========
+
+Name resolution in a class namespace uses a partial dynamic lookup. A
+name can be either local or global depending on whether an assignment
+to the name has occured during the exection of the class body. If a
+name is used before assignment, it will be looked up in globals (and
+builtins).
+
+If a class is defined within a function scope, a name may be resolved
+to the nearest enclosing scope. If name local to an enclosing scope,
+but the name is not bound, a NameError will occur.
+
+The apparent consistency problem is that names may be both local and
+global in the same class block, but they cannot be both local and
+free. Or, name resolution behaves differently in a class depending on
+whether it is defined at the top-level or inside another block.  If a
+global variable exists, it can be used to resolve a free variable
+unless that variable is bound in an enclosing scope of the class.
+
+Here is an example of resolution of a free variable in a class:
+
+>>> x = 0
+>>> def f(x):
+...     class A:
+...         a = x
+...     return A
+...
+>>> A = f(1)
+>>> A.a  # the value of the parameter x, not the global x
+1
+
+The variable x is resolved to the parameter of the function x. The
+global is ignored. This behavior is the standard name resolution
+defined in :pep:`227` and :pep:`3104`.
+
+If x is used as a local variable, the behavior is different at the
+top-level and inside another block. If the same code also uses x as a
+local variable, then the initial reference to x is resolved
+differently.
+
+>>> x = 0
+>>> def f(x):
+...     class A:
+...         a = x
+...         x = 42
+...     return A
+...
+>>> A = f(1)
+>>> A.a  # the value of the global x, not the parameter x
+0
+
+The first reference to x is no longer bound to the local variable x
+defined in f, but instead uses the global variable.
+
+The set of namespaces consulted are determined lexically, but it
+cannot be determined statically whether a particular reference will be
+resolved using the global namespace.
+
+>>> x = 0
+>>> def f(var):
+...     class A:
+...         x = 10
+...         if var in locals():
+...             del locals()[var]
+...         a = x
+...     return A
+...
+>>> A1 = f("x")
+>>> A2 = f("y")
+>>> A1.a, A2.a
+(0, 10)
+
+
+Background
+==========
+
+The Python 2.0 definition specifies exactly three namespaces to
+check for each name -- the local namespace, the global namespace,
+and the builtin namespace. Starting with Python 2.1, lexical scoping
+was used and free variables could be resolved to a binding in an
+enclosing scope. Class namespaces were a special case, and free variables
+were not resolved in enclosing scopes. They used special LOAD_NAME /
+STORE_NAME opcodes that explicit checked local and global namespaces.
+
+In Python 3.4, free variables in classes were resolved in enclosing scopes,
+but a local variable used before assignment was still resolved in the global
+scope. The language specification was not updated at this time, so it
+still specifies the pre-3.4 behavior:
+
+  A class definition is an executable statement that may use and define names.
+  These references follow the normal rules for name resolution with an exception
+  that unbound local variables are looked up in the global namespace.
+
+Class namespaces and top-level module namespaces both use LOAD_NAME / STORE_NAME
+opcodes that reflect the early local / global / builtin scoping rules. Class
+namespaces are also special, because the class namespace become the attributes
+of the class object. Given these differences, the different scoping rules for
+classes weren't considered when :pep:`227` was written.
+
+A bug was filed in 2002. The PEP author closed the bug with the
+comment, "Just don't write code that abuses the wart."
+https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/36300
+Another bug was filed in 2010, leading the same author to suggest a change.
+https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/53472
+Apparently, inconsistent behavior in namespaces can lead to
+inconsistent responses to identical bugs.
+
+Proposal
+========
+
+There are several alternatives we could choose among. A few simple
+alternatives seem wrong. We could revert to pre-3.4 behavior, but it
+was surprising the free variables did not work in class scopes. We
+could keep the current behavior, but it is seems inconsistent.
+
+One approach is to make class namespaces work more like function
+namespaces. If a local variable is used at a time when it is not
+bound, it raises a NameError. This rule is simple and consistent. The
+primary drawback of this approach is that it will break code. Code
+that depends on this feature is inscrutable, depending on the reader
+to understand whether the local or global reference was
+intended. Inscrutable, though, is not the same as undefined or broken
+
+Another approach is to change the behavior of free variable
+resolution to use the global namespaces when a name is unbound. If
+current code would raise a NameError, because a variable was unbound
+in the enclosing scope, it would be resolved in the global namespace.
+
+There is a third approach that is a subtle variant of the second. If
+a local variable is unbound, and that variable has a binding in an
+enclosing scope, use that namespace rather than the global namespace.
+
+>>> x = 0
+>>> def f():
+...     x = 1
+...     class A:
+...         x = 2
+...         del x
+...         a = x # Should this use f's local or global?
+...     return A
+...
+>>> A = f()
+>>> A.a
+?
+
+If a local variable is unbound and it can be resolved in another
+namespace anyway, why only the global namespace? Why not use the
+full set of standard name resolution rules?
+
+This option seems most consistent, but makes the implementation more
+complicated. It can't be statically determinted whether a variable is
+bound at a particular point, so we would need to allocate a cell for
+any local variable of the class that shadows a local variable in an
+enclosing scope. Since dynamic manipulation of local variables is
+unusual, we would expect the extra closures required to almost always
+be unused. It would nonetheless be a somewhat unusual case-- a nested
+class definition that has a local variable that shadows a local
+variable in an enclosing scope.
+
+
+Copyright
+=========
+
+This document is placed in the public domain or under the
+CC0-1.0-Universal license, whichever is more permissive.