Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 12:19:40PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 26.06.2017 12:11, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> > The 'sun_path' field in the sockaddr_un struct is not required >> > to be NULL termianted, so when reporting an error, we must use >> >> s/NULL/NUL/ >> >> NULL is a pointer, NUL is the '\0' character. > > I wanted to point out the same thing to someone recently, so I chased up > a reference to the NUL character in RFC 20 "ASCII format for Network > Interchange". After all, no one can argue with an RFC. > > What I found shocked me! There must be a typo in the ASCII RFC: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc20#section-5.2 > > I closed my browser tab quickly and headed to Wikipedia instead. If the > primary source didn't support my argument, I could always count on good > old Wikipedia... > > But do you know what I found? Someone had conflated nul and null on the > Wikipedia entry: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_character > > Amateurs! The Wikipedia editors probably didn't have the intellectual > calibre to question the correctness of the RFC text the way I did. > > But to cut a long story short, as my search continued the evidence > became overwhelming. It is acceptable to refer to the nul character as > the null character. > > Coming back to the patch in question, although we can't complain about > the "NULL" it's with considerable joy that I'd like to highlight: > > s/termianted/terminated/ > > :) > Stefan
Despite this shocking, shocking precedence, I formally object to the use of NULL in the context of C for anything other than "one particular null pointer". C's confusing enough without overloading identifiers.
