Unicode: ugh!

[Ben Pfaff]

The Unicode standard says this in section 3.9:

"For example, a string is defined as a pointer to char in the
C language, and is conventionally terminated with a NULL
character."

You'd think folks writing standards would bother to properly read
and understand the other standards that they reference.
--
"There's only one thing that will make them stop hating you.
And that's being so good at what you do that they can't ignore you.
I told them you were the best. Now you damn well better be."
--Orson Scott Card, _Ender's Game_

[Artie Gold]

Ben Pfaff wrote:

The Unicode standard says this in section 3.9:

"For example, a string is defined as a pointer to char in the
C language, and is conventionally terminated with a NULL
character."

You'd think folks writing standards would bother to properly read
and understand the other standards that they reference.

....and your C question is...

;-) ;-)

--ag

--
Artie Gold -- Austin, Texas
http://goldsays.blogspot.com
"You can't KISS* unless you MISS**"
[*-Keep it simple, stupid. **-Make it simple, stupid.]

[osmium]

"Ben Pfaff" writes:

The Unicode standard says this in section 3.9:

"For example, a string is defined as a pointer to char in the
C language, and is conventionally terminated with a NULL
character."

You'd think folks writing standards would bother to properly read
and understand the other standards that they reference.

What's your complaint? That the ASCII null should be spelled NUL?

[Ben Pfaff]

"osmium" <r1********@com cast.net> writes:

"Ben Pfaff" writes:

The Unicode standard says this in section 3.9:

"For example, a string is defined as a pointer to char in the
C language, and is conventionally terminated with a NULL
character."

You'd think folks writing standards would bother to properly read
and understand the other standards that they reference.

What's your complaint? That the ASCII null should be spelled NUL?

Here is the definition of a string:

A string is a contiguous sequence of characters terminated
by and including the first null character.

A string is not a pointer to char: it is a sequence of
characters. It is not "conventionally " terminated by a null
character, it is always terminated by one (otherwise it is not a
string). In C, the null terminator is not a NULL character (NULL
is a null pointer constant); it is not the NUL character either,
because that assumes an ASCII character set; the null terminator
is in fact the "null character", as quoted above.

It's amazing how much they managed to get wrong in a single
sentence.
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

[osmium]

"Ben Pfaff" wrote:

"osmium" <r1********@com cast.net> writes:

"Ben Pfaff" writes:

The Unicode standard says this in section 3.9:

"For example, a string is defined as a pointer to char in the
C language, and is conventionally terminated with a NULL
character."

You'd think folks writing standards would bother to properly read
and understand the other standards that they reference.
What's your complaint? That the ASCII null should be spelled NUL?

Here is the definition of a string:

A string is a contiguous sequence of characters terminated
by and including the first null character.

A string is not a pointer to char: it is a sequence of
characters. It is not "conventionally " terminated by a null
character, it is always terminated by one (otherwise it is not a
string). In C, the null terminator is not a NULL character (NULL
is a null pointer constant); it is not the NUL character either,
because that assumes an ASCII character set; the null terminator
is in fact the "null character", as quoted above.

I glossed over the word "conventionally ", that is not a good basis for a
definition. As far as the ASCII component, I figured that was justified
somewhere in the thicket of documents. Every UTF I have seen embeds ASCII
in it. But I don't claim to have seen all the UTF's that exist.
It's amazing how much they managed to get wrong in a single
sentence.

I just read it again and I now agree with you. I thought earlier you were
nit-picking on the extra 'L'.

[Keith Thompson]

"osmium" <r1********@com cast.net> writes:

"Ben Pfaff" wrote:

"osmium" <r1********@com cast.net> writes:

"Ben Pfaff" writes:
The Unicode standard says this in section 3.9:

"For example, a string is defined as a pointer to char in the
C language, and is conventionally terminated with a NULL
character."

You'd think folks writing standards would bother to properly read
and understand the other standards that they reference.

What's your complaint? That the ASCII null should be spelled NUL?

Here is the definition of a string:

A string is a contiguous sequence of characters terminated
by and including the first null character.

A string is not a pointer to char: it is a sequence of
characters. It is not "conventionally " terminated by a null
character, it is always terminated by one (otherwise it is not a
string). In C, the null terminator is not a NULL character (NULL
is a null pointer constant); it is not the NUL character either,
because that assumes an ASCII character set; the null terminator
is in fact the "null character", as quoted above.

I glossed over the word "conventionally ", that is not a good basis for a
definition. As far as the ASCII component, I figured that was justified
somewhere in the thicket of documents. Every UTF I have seen embeds ASCII
in it. But I don't claim to have seen all the UTF's that exist.

It's amazing how much they managed to get wrong in a single
sentence.

I just read it again and I now agree with you. I thought earlier you were
nit-picking on the extra 'L'.

Even if that were the only problem, it would be enough of a basis to
criticize it. NULL has a very well-defined meaning in C, and it has
very little to do with the '\0' character.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Richard G. Riley]

On 2006-03-13, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> wrote:

Even if that were the only problem, it would be enough of a basis to
criticize it. NULL has a very well-defined meaning in C, and it has
very little to do with the '\0' character.

In restrospect it was a bit silly to have a NULL and a "null"
character,'\0', and then to compound it all with a "null pointer"... 2
seconds with google shows generations of confusion and standards
abuse.

[Jordan Abel]

On 2006-03-13, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> wrote:

"osmium" <r1********@com cast.net> writes:

"Ben Pfaff" wrote:

"osmium" <r1********@com cast.net> writes:
"Ben Pfaff" writes:
> The Unicode standard says this in section 3.9:
>
> "For example, a string is defined as a pointer to char in the
> C language, and is conventionally terminated with a NULL
> character."
>
> You'd think folks writing standards would bother to properly read
> and understand the other standards that they reference.

What's your complaint? That the ASCII null should be spelled NUL?

Here is the definition of a string:

A string is a contiguous sequence of characters terminated
by and including the first null character.

A string is not a pointer to char: it is a sequence of
characters. It is not "conventionally " terminated by a null
character, it is always terminated by one (otherwise it is not a
string). In C, the null terminator is not a NULL character (NULL
is a null pointer constant); it is not the NUL character either,
because that assumes an ASCII character set; the null terminator
is in fact the "null character", as quoted above.

I glossed over the word "conventionally ", that is not a good basis for a
definition. As far as the ASCII component, I figured that was justified
somewhere in the thicket of documents. Every UTF I have seen embeds ASCII
in it. But I don't claim to have seen all the UTF's that exist.

It's amazing how much they managed to get wrong in a single
sentence.

I just read it again and I now agree with you. I thought earlier you were
nit-picking on the extra 'L'.

Even if that were the only problem, it would be enough of a basis to
criticize it. NULL has a very well-defined meaning in C, and it has
very little to do with the '\0' character.

Though, '\0' is incidentally a null pointer constant... so #define NULL
'\0' would be legal.

[Keith Thompson]

Jordan Abel <ra*******@gmai l.com> writes:

On 2006-03-13, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> wrote:

[...]

Even if that were the only problem, it would be enough of a basis to
criticize it. NULL has a very well-defined meaning in C, and it has
very little to do with the '\0' character.

Though, '\0' is incidentally a null pointer constant... so #define NULL
'\0' would be legal.

Yes, of course; that's the "very little" I was referring to.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <ln************ @nuthaus.mib.or g>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> wrote:

Even if that were the only problem, it would be enough of a basis to
criticize it. NULL has a very well-defined meaning in C, and it has
very little to do with the '\0' character.

However, the text is in the Unicode standard, and there NULL means the
character with code 0.

-- Richard