[Apologies for the belated followup...]
Kent M Pitman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
| Christophe Rhodes <email@example.com> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
SGI Network Engineering <http://www.meer.net/~rpw3/>
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy. Phone: 650-933-1673
Mountain View, CA 94043 PP-ASEL-IA
[Note: email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org aren't for humans ]