Stanislaw Halik <sthalik@...> writes:
> thus spoke Christophe Rhodes <csr21@...>:
>>> I made a patch, would you be willing to accept it?
>> Is there not a read-print consistency issue? As I recall (maybe
>> incorrectly), the namestring of a pathname is meant to be canonical in
>> the sense that no other pathname generates that namestring. As such, I
>> think your patch is wrong.
> Good point. How about this patch, then?
> With this approach there can't be any pathnames containing dots but no
> type, though.
That's more of a possibility, but why is the right answer not either not
to have component names with dots in them in asdf, or else to treat the
dot within a component name in asdf as indicating a separator between
name and type?