I'm slightly confused by his description of: "Oh, but it’s clever, you see, because the Enigma machine [...] translates ordinary messages into code through an

I'm slightly confused by his description of: "Oh, but it’s clever, you see, because the Enigma machine [...] translates ordinary messages into code through an ingenious method by which no letter in the code ever repeats, making it almost impossible to decode in the ordinary ways." Since it used a standard alphabet of symbols, and messages >26 chars exist, that statement is wrong. I presume he actually means that plaintext symbols will not code consistently to the same ciphertext symbols (i.e. not a simple substitution cipher), due to the rotation of the rotors. But it's also not entirely far from another very interesting property (and one which significantly aided in the breaking of the code), by which no plaintext symbol can ever map to itself (due to the reflector design)