> >> 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"?

I guess I was thinking "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile".
Yeah, this is a bad attitude of mine that I need to shake.

OK, so right now machine_spec is:

machine MACHINE [MACHINE_ARCH]

Are there any objections to it becoming:

machine MACHINE [MACHINE_ARCH [MACHINE_OTHER ...]]

Matt

--
Matt Fredette
http://mit.edu/fredette/www