On 1/08/2012, at 7:32 PM, Michael Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Richard O'Keefe <o...@cs.otago.ac.nz> wrote:No, what's wrong is the assertion that Unicode codepoints
>> On 31/07/2012, at 9:53 PM, Michael Turner wrote:
>>>> << An Erlang "string" is simply a list of integers. Each integer can
>>> Except that Unicode codepoints represents characters, right?
> Actually, what's *really* wrong in my statement is the grammar -- bad
> I'm certain this is correct, Richard, but ... what problem are weHaving Joe not accidentally lying to his readers.
> trying to solve again?
> IIRC: Joe is trying to come up with a shortNobody ever said that >Joe< should say all that.
> passage that explains what strings are, in Erlang. If he writes all
> that you wrote above, the reader (who might have been initially
> excited about Erlang) will come away with the impression, "Erlang
> people are excruciatingly pedantic".
What he needs to say is something like
The phrase 'named in the standard' makes this literally true; it also
>>> << In Erlang, strings are represented as lists of integers. TheseBecause it is dangerously wrong and misleading.
>>> integers are Unicode codepoints, each representing a character. >>
>>> That way, anybody who's unclear on what "codepoint" means gets a
> Can anyone tell me why this *wouldn't* serve Joe's (== the typical
Why say what is untrue, when you can say something true that is
nearly as simple and serves the job just as well?
erlang-questions mailing list
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.