From: Daryle Walker (dwalker07_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-13 16:38:48
On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 6:27 PM, Beman Dawes wrote:
> At 01:31 PM 6/12/2003, Daryle Walker wrote:
[SNIP]
>> Is it possible to override this and use "." or ".." as regular object
>> names?
>
> No. Likewise there is no escape mechanism that allows you to include
> "/" in a name.
>
> There are a bunch of reasons - but particularly it would be creating
> names that will just be rejected by many (or even most) modern
> operating systems. What would be the point of that? It is the same as
> with requests for allowing full URI syntax in paths; without any
> mechanism in the operational functions allowing those paths, what
> would be the point?
>
So users with platforms that could support those object names are out
of luck?
Are these limitations mentioned in the docs?
[a few seconds pass...]
I just thought of something. What happens on systems that don't
support certain non-controversial characters? Or what happens if the
environment supports characters that are untypeable? Some sort of
escape mechanism may be required. (The Unicode escapes may suffice,
though.)
Daryle