>
>
>> Why limit it to two additional names?  Why not accept a (more or less)
>> arbitrary number of them, from zero upwards?
>
>Dunno.  It might encourage overuse?  I dig keeping available mechanism
>to a minimum, until it becomes clear that it's needed.

In general that's not the best attitude to have in designing API's (which this
really is). The whole point here is to build a nice extensible system rather
than a very rigid one which everyone starts hacking around as soon as it
gets in their way.

This is same sort of reasoning historically I've heard for random limits
in system utils/programs and in general they never hold water and often
times are a result of people simply not wanting to take the time to do it
right (which I'm not necessarily saying is the case here). 

What exactly would be the harm in allowing an arbitrary set of names here? 
How/what defines "overuse"?

James