[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bug-gnulib] null vs. `NUL byte'
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: [bug-gnulib] null vs. `NUL byte' |
Date: |
Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:34:48 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.5 |
Paul Eggert wrote:
> We should use the phrase "null character" or the abbrevation NUL only
> when we're talking about characters, not bytes.
But Jim _is_ talking about characters! The terminator of a C multi-byte
string is the NUL multi-byte character, It happens that this character fits
in 1 byte; therefore - in order not to confuse the reader - it's perfectly
natural to talk about a "NUL byte".
Please, let's use the "NUL byte" terminology in the context of C strings.
It's the most precise and readable that is available.
> POSIX uses the phrase "null byte"
It's less precise, because with this term you forget that you're dealing with
a character. "null byte" is also an adequate description for the elements of
uint8_t foo[100];
> Or maybe just "'\0'"?
This is not pronouncible and hurts the flow of reading.
Bruno