Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 23:34:37 -0500 From: Tim Vanderhoek <vanderh@ecf.utoronto.ca> To: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, brian@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/string strrchr.3 strtok.3 Message-ID: <19991229233437.A19061099@skule.ecf.utoronto.ca> In-Reply-To: <199912292122.VAA89734@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org>; from Brian Somers on Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 09:22:35PM %2B0000
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 09:22:35PM +0000, Brian Somers wrote: > > > pointer" instead. The potential confusion arises because the string/*.3 > > pages use the term "null-terminated string" (which is permissable). > > I think the real problem is > > s/null-terminated/nul-terminated/ Perhaps. Bruce seemed to suggest that the problem is inherent in the C standard but advocated the same thing that you are suggesting (if I understand him correctly). I'm a little more leery than either of you. Of the two terms, "NUL-terminated" and "null-terminated", only the latter allows consistent terminology when discussing wide character strings. Anyways, the term "the NULL pointer" was invented during a fit of ego on my part and I'm going to back that out. I may also fix functions that claim to return "a NULL pointer" at the same time. Bruce suggested that "returning NULL" is also broken. I'm not sure I agree. Certainly a function can "return NULL;". There is a consistency issue, however. -- Signature withheld by request of author. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991229233437.A19061099>