Thanks for the ideas.

It has at least allowed me to clarify some of my ideas about this.
Nothing actually gives me what I want, but I can see that what I wanted violated the sanctity of 'use strict'. I was explicitly wanting to be able to make implicit references to symbols in another package. Terrible thing thoughtcrime.

What it looks like to me is that there isn't any way when you use strict 'vars' to provide definitions that look as though they are in your namespace unless they are physically in your file.

It's this kind of thing that makes people consider options like no strict 'vars' or even (horror of horrors) pre-processing.

Is there some sort of non-righteousness in the laziness of not wanting to qualify these symbols with package names?