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 >
