Re^2: Context, pedantry and appropriate response.

[BrowserUk]

"Unocode string"

Hm. I just used my browser's Find command on the entire thread and nowhere did it find the word "Unocode"; nor do I remember correcting such a typo?

no such thing as a "Unocode string"

Hm.

• In the context of a computer program, a "string" is: "an array of (usually small, zero-based) integers that collectively encode the characters, digits and symbols used in written communication systems.".
• Unicode is: "Unicode is a computing industry standard for the consistent encoding, representation, and handling of text expressed in most of the world's writing systems".

It'll be interesting to see what level of pedantry you have to descend to in order to come up with a justification for your refusal to accept the term 'Unicode string', for a scalar variable that contains (or rather names) an array of small integers that represent some text, encoded using (one of the) Unicode encodings?

[1nickt]

I work with a lot of programmers. They are definitely not pedants. I wish more of them were more "pedantic," in fact. I have never heard any of them refer to a "Unicode string" - they all say "UTF-8 string" which at least narrows it down to the encoding.

You also used the term "Unicrap" repeatedly in your earlier thread: I guess you are struggling to "get" Unicode. That's understandable; it can be confusing.

I think you are also confused about pedantry: it is not pedantic to refer to things by their correct name, actually.

As you well know, inaccurate spelling or syntax in code breaks the program. Why so cavalier about inter-human communication?

If I were your editor and I corrected your OP here so that your repeated misuse of the noun 'weight' was changed to what you really meant, the verb 'weigh,' is that being pedantic?

[BrowserUk]

your repeated misuse of the noun 'weight' was changed to what you really meant, the verb 'weigh,' is that being pedantic?

For you to be able to point out my error and inform me of "what you really meant", you must have understood what I was trying to communicate; thus there is no purpose in pointing it out, and feeling the need to do so is the very definition of pedantry. So yes!

I work with a lot of programmers. They are definitely not pedants. I wish more of them were more "pedantic," in fact. I have never heard any of them refer to a "Unicode string" -

Hearsay. Appeal to authority.

"That which is asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence." -- but where's the fun in that!

they all say "UTF-8 string" which at least narrows it down to the encoding.

If they and/or you think that utf-8 is the only form of Unicode, its no wonder that you find Unicode confusing.

I don't; I find it eminently clear. So clear in fact that I can see its inherent flaws.

If you actually read the context, you'd discover that I was referring to files of Unicode data, each of which could be encoded an any of the many Unicode encodings, thus the strings being referred to can be encoded in any one of those Unicode encodings; and so I referred to them collectively as "Unicode strings".

In exactly the same way as the Unicode Consortium themselves do:

• The Unicode string <U+0061, U+FFFF, U+0062> is just a sequence of 3 Unicode characters. It is valid *for* use in internal processing, because"
• "String is a Unicode string type--an array of UTF-16 code units. That is the internal encoding of String is UTF-16."
• "Computing the length or position of a "character" in a Unicode string can be a little complicated, as there are four different approaches to ..."
• "Unicode String. A code unit sequence containing code units of a particular Unicode encoding form (whether well-formed or not)."
• "Are noncharacters invalid in Unicode strings and UTFs?"
• "A Unicode string with the sequence, say, <U+0300, U+0061> (a combining grave mark, followed by "a"), is "valid" Unicode in the sense that"
• "At this point, if one is transforming a Unicode string to NFD or NFKD, the process is complete"
• "That is, any sequence of bytes can be converted by each charset converter to a Unicode string, and that Unicode string would be converted"
• "Briefly stated, the Unicode Collation Algorithm takes an input Unicode string and a Collation Element Table, containing mapping data for characters"
• "the corresponding Unicode string sequence"
• "occur in a UTF-16 Unicode string; instead, the code unit sequence"

  NOTE: the qualification.

• "Depending on the programming environment, a Unicode string may or may not also be required to be in the corresponding Unicode encoding form."
• And many, many more.

Using your own misunderstanding, and appeals to the authority of "lots of programmers you work with"; to 'correct' my appropriate use of the term; is further evidence.

Why so cavalier about inter-human communication?

3 days or a week from now, once I've forgotten what I intended to write in the OP; I'll re-read it and those errors will stand out like a sore thumb, and I'll likely correct them as I often do.

In the meantime, look up the word aphasia.

If you had a lisp or limp or a lazy eye and I used it as a way of trying to mock you; I would rightly be condemned for it.