Re: NUL to terminate strings; was reinventing ASCII?

James Harris <james.harris.1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:

> On 8 Mar, 17:22, Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> ...
>> So they need a terminating character unless they are defined some
>> other way?  Surely the question was why were they not defined in one
>> of these other ways?
>
> Yes, I mean that to allow C strings to be defined as they are by a
> single pointer requires there to be a terminating character of some
> sort.

But this is not true -- at least not literally true.  In BCPL strings
were represented by a single pointer, but that pointer was to a
length.  I am sure you are not unaware of this kind of representation,
I just think you are over-cooking the argument to come up with
"requires there to be a terminating character".  I see no such
requirement -- it could have been different.

I suspect I am reading more into your statement than you intended.

-- 
Ben.