Aaron wrote: > I dislike "reserved" in this context, but understand why the namespace has > to be shared. For config options, I'd say anything should go, but people > inventing their own config options should be aware that across N release > cycles, new options may be introduced.
...which means that sensible people will avoid those namespaces anyway, so they might as well be reserved...which then enables us to warn any not-so-sensible people that their choice of an all-lower- or all-upper-case option name is brittle and likely to end in tears. BTW, I also like Darren's suggestion to restrict the reserved space for standard typenames and option names to the ASCII range. Dåmîäñ
