On 09/21/2016 03:59 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> 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".


The character is called "NUL" just much as I'm called "palves".  :-)

I.e., three-letter uppercase "NUL" is a control character
name abbreviation, just like, ACK, LF, DEL, ESC, etc.

The original ASCII standard used "NULL" for abbreviation, and then
in later revisions, it was shortened to "NUL".  All control
characters have 2 or 3 letter abbreviations in the latest ASCII
standard, and are written in uppercase, which to me looks like
the obvious reason for "NUL" with single "L".



>From the latter:

5.2 Control Characters

      NUL (Null): The all-zeros character which may serve to accomplish
   time fill and media fill.
      SOH (Start of Heading): A communication control character used at
   the beginning of a sequence of characters which constitute a

>> 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).

To me too.  Lowercase "nul" has all the looks of a typo to me.
I'd only use lowercase like that if abbreviations of other characters
were lowercase too in similar contexts, like "... the esc character ...",

Pedro Alves

Reply via email to