[erlang-questions] correct terminology for referring to strings
Thu Aug 2 10:54:12 CEST 2012
This is an introductory book right, so how about something like:
<< A "string" is a list of integers where the integers represent
(actually, they are Unicode codepoints that represent characters, but
worry about that right now). >>
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Joe Armstrong <> wrote:
> I'm working on a 2'nd edition of my book, and have got to strings :-)
> Strings confuse everybody, including me so I have a few questions:
> To start with Erlang doesn't have strings - it has lists (not strings)
> and it has string literals.
> I want to define a string - is this correct:
> << A "string" is a list of integers where the integers
> represent Unicode codepoints. >>
> Is the sentence inside << .. >> using the correct terminology?
> If not what should it say?
> Is the sentence inside << ... >> widely understood, do you think this
> would confuse a lot of people?
> Is the phrase "string literal" widely understood?
> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions