[erlang-questions] correct terminology for referring to strings

[Richard O'Keefe]

On 1/08/2012, at 7:32 PM, Michael Turner wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Richard O'Keefe <ok@REDACTED> wrote:
>> 
>> On 31/07/2012, at 9:53 PM, Michael Turner wrote:
>> 
>>>> << An Erlang "string" is simply a list of integers.  Each integer can
>>>> represent any Unicode codepoint/character. >>
>>> 
>>> Except that Unicode codepoints represents characters, right?
>> 
>> Wrong.
> 
> Actually, what's *really* wrong in my statement is the grammar -- bad
> plural agreement.

No, what's wrong is the assertion that Unicode codepoints
represent characters.

> I'm certain this is correct, Richard, but ... what problem are we
> trying to solve again?

Having Joe not accidentally lying to his readers.


> IIRC: Joe is trying to come up with a short
> passage that explains what strings are, in Erlang. If he writes all
> that you wrote above, the reader (who might have been initially
> excited about Erlang) will come away with the impression, "Erlang
> people are excruciatingly pedantic".

Nobody ever said that >Joe< should say all that.

What he needs to say is something like
+++	Unicode is actually insanely complicated,
+++	but a good starting point is that each character
+++	named in the Unicode standard is assigned a
+++	unique integer called a codepoint,
+++	and an Erlang string is just a list of these numbers.

The phrase 'named in the standard' makes this literally true; it also
asserts that characters are given codepoints (true), not that
odepoints represent characters (false).

>>> << In Erlang, strings are represented as lists of integers. These
>>> integers are Unicode codepoints, each representing a character. >>
>>> 
>>> That way, anybody who's unclear on what "codepoint" means gets a
>>> freebie definition of it. In the Unicode context, it's probably wrong,
>>> technically, but perhaps good enough for this purpose.
> 
> Can anyone tell me why this *wouldn't* serve Joe's (== the typical
> reader's) purposes? [*]

Because it is dangerously wrong and misleading.
Why say what is untrue, when you can say something true that is
nearly as simple and serves the job just as well?