On 2007-07-26 12:07:10 +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > On 2007-07-26 10:16:07 +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > > How do you deduce that it is the "standard: wording? Because > > > it uses that terminology that on one page? > > > > The following pages also use the term "null pointer": > > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/malloc.html > > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/fopen.html > > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/free.html > > > > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/xsh_chap02_01.html > > for instance (and I didn't find any other wording). > > Well, I find numerous other wordings...
I had just looked at a few pages, for the most common functions, in particular (i.e. some parts that should have been read by most people). > > > The wording of this particular spec may have changed (I'll > > > take your word for it), > > > > This is not a particular spec. > > (By "particular spec", I meant the specification of utimes(); > I'm not sure if that was clear...) In fact, I thought you meant "on only one page". > > > but that doesn't change the point that the terms that I mentioned > > > above are used throughout the standard (even in the POSIX.1 revision > > > that is currently in progress.. I sere no problem with them. > > > > This is wrong. The current revision (P1003.1 Draft 3, 15 June 2007) > > uses the term "null pointer" (defined in 3.243). > > Of course it uses that term. But it *ALSO* uses other > terminology. Frequently. See below. But then I assume that this should be regarded more or less as a bug. As "null pointer" is defined in POSIX and other terminology is not (and has a different meaning in other context, e.g. NULL is a macro), I'd say that "null pointer" is the only terminology that should have been chosen in this context. I don't see the point of using different terminologies in a standard, in particular ambiguous ones (e.g., the expansion of the NULL macro isn't necessarily a pointer, and having a standard or other documentation that doesn't make the difference is quite bad). Do you know if there has been some discussion in austin-group-l (or some other places) about the terminology for null pointers in POSIX? -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
