[erlang-questions] correct terminology for referring to strings

[Richard Carlsson]

On 07/31/2012 04:19 PM, Michael Turner wrote:
>> At runtime, Erlang's strings are just plain sequences of Unicode code points
>> (you can think of it as UTF-32 if you like).
>
> Can you go further and say that it actually *is* UTF-32? A footnote
> like "[*] Basically, UTF-32; see ref XYZ for details" might be
> helpful.

I'm loath to say that it *is* UTF-32, because with that term follows a 
bunch of connotations such as word width and endianism, which don't 
apply to the representation as Erlang integers. I'd like to just refer 
to it as Unicode, but apparently that makes most people think it's 
either UTF-8 or UTF-16.

    /Richard