On 21/09/16 15:37, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> 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?

the c standard calls it "null character".

> 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).
> Thanks.
> Alexander

Reply via email to