[erlang-questions] correct terminology for referring to strings

Thomas Järvstrand <>
Thu Aug 2 10:54:12 CEST 2012


Hi,

This is an introductory book right, so how about something like:

 << A "string" is a list of integers where the integers represent
characters
    (actually, they are Unicode codepoints that represent characters, but
don't
    worry about that right now). >>

Thomas


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. >>
>
> Questions:
>     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?
>
>
> Cheers
>
> /Joe
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> 
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20120802/03fa7ee7/attachment.html>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list