[erlang-questions] correct terminology for referring to strings
Thu Aug 2 14:29:29 CEST 2012
Perfectly clear for me.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 1:24 PM, 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