Subject: Re: Truenames and relativity (theoretical question)
From: (Rob Warnock)
Date: 25 Dec 2001 08:25:09 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <a09d55$2sjid$>
[Apologies for the belated followup...]

Kent M Pitman  <> wrote:
| Christophe Rhodes <> writes:
| > > Are there cases where truenames can be relative?
| > 
| > I would say no, going from CLHS 20.1.3:
| > "... most file systems have a convention for generating a canonical
| > filename in such situations. Such a canonical filename (or the
| > pathname representing such a filename) is called a truename."
| I agree. To be canonical is to be the uniquely determined representative.

But then CL truenames do not meet your criterion for being "canonical".
As CLHS 20.1.3 points out:

	"The truename for a file is often, but not necessarily, unique
	for each file. For instance, a Unix file with multiple hard links
	could have several truenames."

I suspect that's why the earlier CHLS text (quoted by Rhodes, above)
said "*a* canonical filename", rather than "*the* canonical filename"...


Rob Warnock, 30-3-510		<>
SGI Network Engineering		<>
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy.		Phone: 650-933-1673
Mountain View, CA  94043	PP-ASEL-IA

[Note: and aren't for humans ]