If you'd read my post, you'd see that that's
exactly what I was saying. It's Chris that's trying to ad some level of abstraction to C by coming up with this "the <null> character is the absence of a character" stuff, not me. My premise, stated explicitly for all (including you) to read was: There is always a character, that the <null> character is a character just like any other, and that the Founding Fathers gave that character a specific meaning in a specific context. Reading is a skill.
Furthermore, by forcing non-C idioms into your code you just annoy the piss out of the veterans who view your added "clarity" as NOISE.
Listen, Todd, I'll put my C experience up against anybody's on this forum, including yours. My "veteran" status is well documented. I don't do anything to explicitly piss off anybody (and, I don't resort to
ad hominem insults designed to piss of other people, either!). If you want to write what I refer to as "UNIX-style" code -- terse, hard to read, keystroke-miserly -- you go right ahead; I'll continue to use flourishes like clear logical flow, block-structuring, abundant whitespace, clear variable names, and all the keystrokes I deem necessary (and not one extra). And if that pisses you off, Mr. Highly-revered Veteran, then that's
your problem, not mine.