Re: optional_features key names

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Barbie <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Although not explicitly stated in the current specifications (v1.0 -
>> v1.4), the convention has been to precede user defined keys with
>> "[xX]_".
>
> That doesn't sound right for the optional features names.  The effect
> would be that anything is allowed in lower case, but if you want upper
> case you must write x_.
>
> That x_ bit is for extensions to maps with spec-defined keys isn't it?
> In the optional features names there isn't anything spec-defined, it's
> all user-defined names, and you're free to write anything, isn't it?

Part of what is taking me a while to synthesize the 2.0 draft spec
(apart from life kicking my ass lately), is that I'm trying to be
formal about every data type so we can actually do a better job of
validation, and doing those definitions requires a bit of thought and
care.  Just as for prerequisites where the 'keys' are module names,
for optional features the keys will be something that does not need a
leading "x_".   Right now, the draft says "an identifier" and that
term could be defined further.

-- David