The python doc says "str" are immutable sequences of unicode code points. Since it implements __getitem__, its fair to call it an array (it has a length, and allows indexing). I couldn't find out in the documentation whether the __getitem__ is O(1), which I consider a deficiency -- this should definitely be well documented.

It doesn't really matter how some people think "how people understand" something, the documentation matters. Any string in any language is some ordered sequence of atomic text-like objects, so python's approach isn't unreasonable or unexpected, either.

Except a sequence is not an array.

So OP’s definition still does not apply to python’s definition of a string in an unambiguous manner, which was the claim they were making.

In fact, using the OP’s “unambiguous” definition leads to the conclusion that strings shouldn’t have a length function at all since it’s not an array.

I didnt say say a sequence is an array. I said its fair to call str objects in python arrays: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Array_(data_type)

>Since it implements __getitem__, its fair to call it an array (it has a length, and allows indexing)

Well, weren't we talking about things being "ambiguous"?

In Python we call what you describe a list. An array is something different. And people would expect something like the C (or the Java) data structure. In Python that would match the "array" lib package.

And that's just discussing the meaning of array - before we even get to whether a string is an array, and what this means.

>It doesn't really matter how some people think "how people understand" something, the documentation matters

In what universe? In practical use, clarity and non-ambiguous, least surprise names and semantics matter.

"But we clarify it in page 2000 of the documentation" is not an excuse. Nor is invoking moral or professional failings of those not reading the documentation. A good library design doesn't offload clearing ambiguity to the documentation.

>Any string in any language is some ordered sequence of atomic text-like objects

You'd be surprised. Especially since this isn't 1985 where strings were a bunch of 8-bit ascii characters, or even 1995, when widechar 16-bit arrays were "good enough" for Windows and Java, but we have not just non-ascii strings, but even variable length (e.g. utf-8) internal strings in mainstream languages.

Tell me a language where a string isnt an ordered sequence of elements of some atomic text-like data type. Those may have different types - like utf8 bytes, bytes, unicode code points, grapheme clusters etc. But these are all some sort of representation of text at some level. Which one a programming language uses depends on the language, and should be checked in the documentation. Its not like some obscure “check page 2000” of the doc type small print, implying that you need to read 18 tomes of language doc before u can work with the language —- no, but if u want to work with strings in any programming language, u should know what type the elements consist of.

Btw, python my try to overload the meaning of the words array and list, but the word “array” has a generic meaning in this branch of math called computer science (an ordered sequence of elements indexible in O(1)), which is how I used it here.