18014, "bradcray", "What should 'c_nil' be named? Should it even exist?", "2021-07-01T02:13:16Z"
It's been pointed out that c_nil
is a weird identifier: the c_
prefix indicates that it's referring to a C symbol named nil
, but it's not. The rationale for this was "It's C's equivalent to Chapel's nil
", but that doesn't really hold up.
For that reason, it's been proposed that we either:
- change it to
c_NULL
: this would be more consistent with our otherc_
prefixes (vote ) - retire it in favor of just using
nil
for this purpose (related to issue #13520) (vote ) - something else...?