On 20.08.20 12:49, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> 20.08.2020 12:22, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 20.08.20 10:31, Max Reitz wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> So all in all, I believe the biggest surprise about what’s written into
>>> the top layer isn’t that it may be a json:{} filename, but the filename
>>> of a node that maybe doesn’t even exist anymore?  (Oh, no, please don’t
>>> tell me you can delete it and get an invalid pointer read...)
>>
>> (I tried triggering that, but, oh, it’s strdup’ed() in stream_start().
>> I’m a bit daft.)
>>
> 
> 
> If it's broken anyway, probably we can just revert c624b015bf and start
> to freeze base again?

Well, it’s only broken if you care about the backing filename string
that’s written to @top.  So it isn’t broken altogether.

Though, well.  If we all agree to just revert it and maybe add a @bottom
parameter instead, then I suppose we could do it.

(Maybe in a follow-up, though.)

Max