On 2007-07-26 10:16:07 +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > No, this seems to have been fixed in the 2004 edition of POSIX (Issue 6). > > See > > > > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/utimes.html > > > > It only uses the term "null pointer". Since it is the standard wording, > > the man pages should be fixed too. > > 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). > The wording of this particular spec may have changed (I'll > take your word for it), This is not a particular spec. > 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). -- 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)
