Re: LOCAL_VARS option ?

[Peter Stephenson <p.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I've committed this for further examination.

> We've got a byte's worth of data with options we could use more
> expressively anyway.  I think we've vaguely discussed this before.

This could be done in a fairly non-disruptive way if we ever need it.
Extend the current syntax to setopt option=(off|on) and allow individual
options to extend the mapping (off|on|other1|other2).  isset(X) is simply
(opts[X]) so the extra detail is already there if you want to get it out.

This won't stop the current init trickery with a value of 2 for certain
existing options which are never going to get public additional values.

pws