code review 1854042: os: Null device

os: Null device

[peterGo, 2010-07-17 00:45:15]

Hello rsc (cc: golang-dev@googlegroups.com),

I'd like you to review this change.

[rsc, 2010-07-17 00:52:27]

I am a bit unhappy about this but I don't see a better solution.
It should be named DevNull not DEVNULL.

Doc comments begin with complete sentences:

// DevNull is the name of the operating system's ``null device.''
// On Unix-like systems, it is "/dev/null"; on Windows, "NUL".

Russ

[peterGo, 2010-07-17 13:56:33]

Hello rsc (cc: golang-dev@googlegroups.com),

Please take another look.

[cw, 2010-07-22 03:26:47]

On 2010/07/17 00:52:27, rsc wrote:

> It should be named DevNull not DEVNULL.

Nit:

Why DevNull?  Certainly if you paraphrase /dev/null that makes sense, but there
are other platforms without that.

Given it's a Null Device it could be argues NullDev or NullDevice makes more
sense.

[peterGo, 2010-07-22 06:40:01]

On 2010/07/22 03:26:47, cw wrote:
> On 2010/07/17 00:52:27, rsc wrote:
> 
> > It should be named DevNull not DEVNULL.
> 
> Nit:
> 
> Why DevNull?  Certainly if you paraphrase /dev/null that makes sense, but
there
> are other platforms without that.
> 
> Given it's a Null Device it could be argues NullDev or NullDevice makes more
> sense.

Consistency. The rest of the documentation displays a clear bias towards using
*nix terminology. Why should this be an exception? Or, do you propose to change
all the documentation to use OS neutral terminology. Also, don't forget that
OS/360 uses NULLFILE and it's used as a file name, so don't use device in the
name either!

Il meglio è l’inimico del bene

[rsc1, 2010-08-03 20:03:28]

LGTM

[rsc, 2010-08-03 20:03:52]

*** Submitted as http://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=8dec01689b42 ***

os: Null device

R=rsc, cw
CC=golang-dev
http://codereview.appspot.com/1854042

Committer: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>