[erlang-questions] byte() vs. char() use in documentation

[Masklinn]

On 2011-05-06, at 07:34 , Richard O'Keefe wrote:
>> To come back to the point, we have to define what we mean with the Erlang
>> char() type:
>> - if it's an individual character then it can naturally be represented as
>>  a single integer for its code point
>> - if it's a logical character then it has to be a list of integers
> Since we cannot know what a logical character is, and since we need *some*
> representation of Unicode code points, I recommend that char()=code point.
Why pick code points rather than grapheme cluster?

>> In any case, the language must provide specific functions to work on strings
>> and characters. For instance, a logical character comparison must take into
>> account the Unicode equivalence.
> What do you mean "THE" equivalence?\
I would guess he means what he linked: unicode equivalence (as per unicode),
likely compatible (in order to equate "ffi" with "ffi" for instance)