[Apologies for the belated followup...]

Kent M Pitman  <pitman@world.std.com> wrote:
+---------------
| Christophe Rhodes <csr21@cam.ac.uk> 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

-----
Rob Warnock, 30-3-510		<rpw3@sgi.com>
SGI Network Engineering		<http://www.meer.net/~rpw3/>
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy.		Phone: 650-933-1673
Mountain View, CA  94043	PP-ASEL-IA

[Note: aaanalyst@sgi.com and zedwatch@sgi.com aren't for humans ]