Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> Also I agree with Peff that a test with an embedded NUL would be a >> good thing. > > This is something I will leave to somebody else, as it was not my > intention to fix this and I *really* have more pressing things to do right > now... Sorry! As I said a few minutes ago, I think we can stop _before_ worrying about an embedded NUL, which is something we haven't handled before anyway so it is a new feature that can be built later outside the scope of this series.