On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 9:53 AM Roland Illig <roland.il...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Am 24.03.2022 um 02:55 schrieb David H. Gutteridge: > > Module Name: src > > Committed By: gutteridge > > Date: Thu Mar 24 01:55:15 UTC 2022 > > > > Modified Files: > > src/lib/libc/gen: popen.3 > > > > Log Message: > > popen.3: minor spelling, grammar, style, and xref tweaks > > > > > > To generate a diff of this commit: > > cvs rdiff -u -r1.22 -r1.23 src/lib/libc/gen/popen.3 > > The term "null-terminated string" is quite common when talking about C. > In contrast, the word "nul" in "nul-terminated" always reminds me of > the character abbreviation in ASCII, which has a narrower scope than C. > I prefer to keep "null-terminated" here. > The standard uses "null-terminated" and "null character" (see Character Sets section 5.2.1 (from the C2x draft, but this term dates back to C89): "A byte with all bits set to 0, called the null character, shall exist in the basic execution character set; it is used to terminate a character string." I couldn't find the definition for null-terminated though. This is different than the NULL #define Not to be confused with the all zeros ASCII charater, whose mnemonic is NUL, which is where some pressure to use NUL terminated comes from. I agree that it's usage is narrower and really only relevant for certain ASCII and ASCII-derived character sets, which is why the standard chose the spelling it did. Since all the 'C' standards[*] use "null-terminated" and "null character", it's likely best to use that terminology because there is a source of truth for its definition in case of ambiguity or doubt. Warner [*] I've not gone the extra mile and checked to see if K&R used this phrase, to be honest.
