On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 09/21/2016 01:11 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > The patch uses "nul" instead of "null" throughout.
> Yes, that's intentional. NUL and null are alternate spellings for
> the same character. I went with nul to distinguish it from the null
> pointer and used all lowercase as per the GCC convention.
Can you elaborate which guideline suggests spelling that in lowercase?
It seems quite strange to me, especially given that the documentation
added with the patch uses "NUL character" (which I believe to be a more
common form), but then warnings use "nul" (without the "character" iiuc).