Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Erlang Programming
Home
+ new post
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion correct terminology for referring to strings
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Michael Turner  
View profile  
 More options Jul 31 2012, 8:51 pm
From: Michael Turner <michael.eugene.tur...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 09:51:21 +0900
Local: Tues, Jul 31 2012 8:51 pm
Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] correct terminology for referring to strings
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Masklinn <maskl...@masklinn.net> wrote:
> On 2012-07-31, at 16:37 , Richard Carlsson wrote:

>> 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.

> Say it's a sequence of code points (reified as integers)? That's exactly
> what it is.

But as Richard Carlsson points out, that's NOT quite "exactly what it is."

> ... If people don't know what a code point is, they can look it
> up. In any case, this shouldn't bring along any undue semantic baggage
> and misconception.

The perfect is often the enemy of the good. Perfect precision is
sometimes the enemy of good initial comprehension. In my experience,
that's *definitely* true of most approaches to Unicode.

I hope we haven't lost track of Joe's goal here: a reasonably accurate
description of what Erlang strings are, in a passage  that, at the
very least, should not intimidate newbies. A quick and approximate
gloss of "codepoint" in the main text, together with a footnote
apologizing for the oversimplification and suggesting a more detailed
reference, strikes me as the best compromise between precision and the
need to appeal to the reader. Appealing to the reader is not exactly
optional for Erlang. Every day, I hear more about Scala and Node.js.

-michael turner
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
erlang-questi...@erlang.org
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google