Is there not a “falsehoods programmers think about phone numbers” yet?
Edit: And once again, I’m still confused about some of these. Do we need to expand unicode for names? It’s supposed to be universal. WTF is up with 40?
I suppose that a counterexample to this might be Tibetan children, who get named at puberty, IIRC. Before that, they have no names. They are just referred to as “child” or “somebody’s child”.
People’s names are all mapped in Unicode code points.
I suppose a counterexample to that might be cultures which do not use script in general. Then, obviously, there’s no Unicode characters for these non-existant glyphs.
Ah, so it dovetails with the whole “children get a name reasonably fast” thing. I was interpreting that as “ever, in a natural lifespan”. My bad, haha.
I suppose a counterexample to that might be cultures which do not use script in general. Then, obviously, there’s no Unicode characters for these non-existant glyphs.
True, but there’s little risk of a name being entered into a form without some kind of transcription.
i think you think that telephone numbers are well-structured. they are not. they are messy. they do not fit a certain schematic.
I recommend also the following topic: “people have names”. https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/
Names do not in general fit into the schematic “first name, last name”
Is there not a “falsehoods programmers think about phone numbers” yet?
Edit: And once again, I’m still confused about some of these. Do we need to expand unicode for names? It’s supposed to be universal. WTF is up with 40?
https://github.com/google/libphonenumber/blob/master/FALSEHOODS.md has falsehoods about phone numbers.
I suppose that a counterexample to this might be Tibetan children, who get named at puberty, IIRC. Before that, they have no names. They are just referred to as “child” or “somebody’s child”.
I suppose a counterexample to that might be cultures which do not use script in general. Then, obviously, there’s no Unicode characters for these non-existant glyphs.
Ah, so it dovetails with the whole “children get a name reasonably fast” thing. I was interpreting that as “ever, in a natural lifespan”. My bad, haha.
True, but there’s little risk of a name being entered into a form without some kind of transcription.