Comment 7 for bug 1882520

No, the previous version of that code at 1f726c876027894c78c1a18fe2f2de9eb04c288c still had strchr(pstr, ',') in the condition.

My point is that both [] and [42] are completely legal record names according to our documentation, so this merge would change the meaning of them when used as an INP field value. Neither the double-quote nor comma characters are legal in record names as documented, and the two strchr() tests were to ensure that we only changed the meaning in cases that weren't previously legal.

The commit you pointed to was made to also allow constant strings to be specified using the DB-file syntax ["..."].

We can have a discussion over whether we want to change the requirements for legal record names, but we should agree about doing that first.