> > > 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?
By the way, note the following in the spec of <stddef.h>: 11296 CX NULL Null pointer constant. The macro shall expand to an integer constant expression + 11297 with the value 0 cast to type void *. -- Michael Kerrisk maintainer of Linux man pages Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 Want to help with man page maintenance? Grab the latest tarball at http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/docs/manpages , read the HOWTOHELP file and grep the source files for 'FIXME'. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
