[erlang-questions] correct terminology for referring to strings

[Michael Turner]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Masklinn <masklinn@REDACTED> wrote:
> On 2012-07-31, at 11:53 , 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?
>
> Depends, the definition of "character" is quite ambiguous.

I think you're right, and if Joe goes with something like my wording
(which is not included in what you quote above), what you say below
should really be condensed into a footnote that refers to a more
complete and accurate discussion. E.g., "[*] In its fullest
generality, it's not quite that simple, since codepoints in some
writing systems can actually refer to *parts* of what most Westerners
might think of as a single 'character'; see XYZ for a more detailed
discussion."

[snip]

-michael turner