Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/lib/libc/string
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Ben Harris <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/16/2006 13:47:44
In article <20061016115934.GA587@britannica.bec.de> you write:
>On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 11:34:52AM +0100, Ben Harris wrote:
>> I think in the context of the C language, the most correct terminology
>> would be "null character" and "null-terminate". "NUL" should strictly
>> only be used when referring to the character as part of the content of a
>> string, rather than as a terminator. I think "nul" should be avoided
>I disagree as the difference is important and should not be mixed. "NUL"
>is the character used as terminator and not a pointer. Mixing them
>doesn't add any benefit. I should add that the term "nul-terminating" is
>older than ISO C, most likely even older than I am...
On reflection, I think you're right. Since they're just different
spellings of the same word, I can't reasonably object to "nul character"
and "nul-terminate" as synonyms of "null character" and