Geoff Clare wrote in <Y4nXMYB9tFwxeYx5@localhost>: |Steffen Nurpmeso wrote, on 01 Dec 2022: |> Being here, i note an increasing number of "null terminators" for |> strings, which surely is wrong as NULL==(void*)0 (or similar aka |> 0x0, 0, __null, whatever they are doing now and have complained or |> even failed about (?) in the past if misused), whereas i also see |> NUL terminator being used in C181 (once), which surely is correct, |> especially given the number of NUL and NUL character anywhere. |> Overall it surely should be worth an entry in Definitions. |> |> "null terminator" cannot be it. |> I am inclined to open an issue. | |NULL and null are not the same thing. The "null" in "null terminator" |is a null byte, not a null pointer. There is a definition in XBD |chapter 3 for "null byte".
Ah. I see, including references to string and null byte termination. |There are over 30 uses in C181 of "null byte", some within "terminating |null byte" or "null byte terminator". So "null terminator" is just |shorthand for those phrases. Ok. |There are nine uses of "null terminator". The one use of "NUL terminator" |is in getdelim() which was newly added in Issue 7. I consider its use |there to have been an editorial error and for consistency it should be |changed to "null terminator". I only ever used NUL myself. |If you open an issue, please ask for getdelim() to be changed. |Adding a definition of "null terminator" would also be worthwhile. All-in-one https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1621 Thanks --- and apologies, it is a large standard that has grown over decades, and i never "lived" in it, but only ever used some needed parts under a custom interface encapsulation. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)
