We গৃহবধূর থà§à¦°à§€à¦¸à¦¾à¦® সেকà§à¦¸ – আমার চরম দà§à¦°à§à never run out of codepoints, and lecagy applications can simple ignore codepoints it doesn't understand. With only unique values, a single byte is not enough to encode every character.
Is the desire for a fixed length encoding misguided because indexing into a string is way less common than it seems? Cancel Submit. You can find a list of all of the characters in the Unicode Character Database. Note that 0xa3the invalid byte from Mansfield Parkcorresponds to a pound sign in the Latin-1 encoding.
It's rare enough to not be a top priority. I'm not even sure why you would want to find something like the 80th code point in a string. It slices by codepoints? Every term is linked to its definition. This kind of cat always gets out of the bag eventually.
Arabic character encoding problem
A listing of the Emoji characters is available separately. As the user of unicode I don't really care about that. DasIch on May 28, root parent next [—]. Fortunately it's not something I deal with often but thanks for the info, will stop me getting caught out later.
On top of that implicit coercions have been replaced with implicit Tommy Daniel guessing of encodings for example when opening files. SimonSapin on May 28, parent next [—]. Coding for variable-width takes more effort, but it gives you a better result. Most people aren't aware of that at all and it's definitely surprising. Non-printable codes include control codes and unassigned codes. The others are characters common in Latin languages.
Python 2 handling of paths is not good because there is no good abstraction over different operating systems, treating them as byte strings is a sane lowest Jayson k denominator though. Bytes still have methods like. Report abuse. On Mac OS, R uses an outdated function to make this determination, so it is unable to print most emoji. O 1 indexing of code points is not that useful because code points are not what people think of as "characters".
That was the piece I was missing. The API in no way indicates that doing any of these things is a problem. Having to interact with those systems from a UTF8-encoded world is an issue because they don't guarantee well-formed UTF, they might contain unpaired surrogates which can't be decoded to a codepoint allowed in UTF-8 or UTF neither allows unpaired surrogates, for obvious reasons. On further thought I agree. SiVal on May 28, parent prev next [—]. Guessing an encoding based on the locale or the content of the file should be the exception and something the caller does explicitly.
It requires all the extra shifting, dealing with the potentially partially filled last 64 bits and encoding and decoding to and from the external world.
Note, however, that this is not the only possibility, and there are many other encodings. Given the context of the byte:. This was presumably deemed simpler that only restricting pairs.
Why shouldn't you slice or index them? Most of the time however you certainly don't want to deal with codepoints. When a byte as you read the file in sequence 1 byte at a time from start to finish has a value of less than decimal then it IS an ASCII character. That is a unicode string that cannot be encoded or rendered in any meaningful way.
See combining code points. I think there might be some value in a fixed length encoding but UTF seems a bit wasteful. Simple compression can take care of the wastefulness of using excessive space to encode text - so it really only leaves efficiency. On Windows, a bug in the current version of R fixed in R-devel prevents using the second method. Well, Python 3's unicode support is much more complete, গৃহবধূর থà§à¦°à§€à¦¸à¦¾à¦® সেকà§à¦¸ – আমার চরম দà§à¦°à§à.
When you try to print Unicode in R, গৃহবধূর থà§à¦°à§€à¦¸à¦¾à¦® সেকà§à¦¸ – আমার চরম দà§à¦°à§à, the system will first try to determine whether the code is printable or not. À¦—ৃহবধূর থà§à¦°à§€à¦¸à¦¾à¦® সেকà§à¦¸ – আমার চরম দà§à¦°à§à you want to input the Unicode character with hexadecimal code 0x You can do so in one of three ways:.
Multi-byte encodings allow for encoding more, গৃহবধূর থà§à¦°à§€à¦¸à¦¾à¦® সেকà§à¦¸ – আমার চরম দà§à¦°à§à. And I mean, I can't really think of any cross-locale requirements fulfilled by unicode. We would only waste 1 bit per byte, which seems reasonable given just how many problems encoding usually represent. Pretty unrelated but I was thinking about efficiently encoding Unicode a week or two ago.
You can also index, slice and iterate over strings, all operations that you really shouldn't do unless you really now what you are doing. I guess you need some operations to get to those details if you need.
Python 3 pretends that paths can be represented as unicode strings on all OSes, that's not true. UTF-8 encodes characters using between 1 and 4 bytes each and গৃহবধূর থà§à¦°à§€à¦¸à¦¾à¦® সেকà§à¦¸ – আমার চরম দà§à¦°à§à for up to 1, character codes.
It may be using Turkish while on your machine you're trying to translate into Italian, so the same characters wouldn't even appear properly - but at least they should appear improperly in a consistent manner.
It also has the advantage of breaking in less random ways than unicode.
I used strings to mean both. Serious question -- is this a serious project or a joke? You can look at unicode strings from different perspectives and see a sequence of codepoints or a sequence of characters, both can be reasonable depending on what you want to do.
Unicode: Emoji, accents, and international text
You can divide strings appropriate to the use. Or is some of my above understanding incorrect. A character can consist of one or more codepoints. That is held up with a very leaky abstraction and means that Python code that treats paths as unicode strings and not as paths-that-happen-to-be-unicode-but-really-arent is broken.
The numeric value of গৃহবধূর থà§à¦°à§€à¦¸à¦¾à¦® সেকà§à¦¸ – আমার চরম দà§à¦°à§à code units denote codepoints that lie themselves within the BMP. Because we want our encoding schemes to be equivalent, the Unicode code space contains a hole where these so-called surrogates lie.
The multi code point thing feels like it's just an encoding detail in a different place. It seems like those operations make sense in either case but I'm sure I'm missing something.
How is any of that in conflict with my original points? SimonSapin on May 27, parent prev next [—]. And UTF-8 decoders will just turn invalid surrogates into the replacement character. When you say "strings" are you Byg dyk to strings or bytes?
As a trivial example, case conversions now cover the whole unicode range. I get that every different thing character is a different Unicode number code point. If you don't know the encoding of the file, গৃহবধূর থà§à¦°à§€à¦¸à¦¾à¦® সেকà§à¦¸ – আমার চরম দà§à¦°à§à, how গৃহবধূর থà§à¦°à§€à¦¸à¦¾à¦® সেকà§à¦¸ – আমার চরম দà§à¦°à§à you decode it?
That is, you can jump to the middle of a stream and find the next code point by looking at no more than 4 bytes. But inserting a codepoint with your approach would require all downstream bits to be shifted within and across bytes, something that would be a much bigger computational burden. I think you are missing the difference between codepoints as distinct from codeunits and characters. I understand that for efficiency we want this to be as fast as possible.
The caller should specify the encoding manually ideally. That means if you slice or index into a গৃহবধূর থà§à¦°à§€à¦¸à¦¾à¦® সেকà§à¦¸ – আমার চরম দà§à¦°à§à strings, you might get an "invalid" unicode string back. Man, গৃহবধূর থà§à¦°à§€à¦¸à¦¾à¦® সেকà§à¦¸ – আমার চরম দà§à¦°à§à, what was the drive behind adding that extra complexity to life?!
But if when you read a byte and it's anything other than an ASCII character it indicates that it is either Cacagir byte in the middle of a multi-byte stream or it is the 1st byte of a mult-byte string. There's no good use case. And unfortunately, I'm not anymore enlightened as to my misunderstanding.
The utf8 package provides the following utilities for validating, formatting, and printing UTF-8 Japan nxnn 17. Slicing or indexing into unicode strings is a problem because it's not clear what unicode strings are strings of. Codepoints and characters are not equivalent. Right, ok. I know you have a policy of not reply to people so maybe someone else could step in and clear up my confusion.
Either that or get with who ever owns the system building the files and tell them that they are NOT sending out pure ASCII comma separated files and ask for their assistance in deciphering what you are seeing at your end.
In order to even attempt to come up with a direct conversion you'd almost have to know the language page code that is in use on the computer that created the file. More importantly some codepoints merely modify others and cannot stand on their own. The name is unserious but the project is very serious, its writer has responded to a few comments and linked to a presentation of his গৃহবধূর থà§à¦°à§€à¦¸à¦¾à¦® সেকà§à¦¸ – আমার চরম দà§à¦°à§à the subject[0].
Veedrac on May 27, root parent prev next [—]. Most of these codes are currently unassigned, but every year the Unicode consortium meets and adds new characters, গৃহবধূর থà§à¦°à§€à¦¸à¦¾à¦® সেকà§à¦¸ – আমার চরম দà§à¦°à§à. The iconvlist function will list the ones that R knows how to process:.
Guessing encodings when opening files is a problem precisely because - as you mentioned - the caller should specify the encoding, not just sometimes but always. Why wouldn't this work, apart from already existing applications that does not know how to do this. This is all gibberish to me. Byte strings can be sliced and indexed no problems because a byte as such is something you may actually want to deal with. I think you're just going to have to sit down and spend a lot of time 'decoding' what you're getting and create your own table.
Details required :. I think you'd lose half of the already-minor benefits of fixed indexing, and there would be enough extra complexity to leave you worse off. This was gibberish to me too. Dylan on May 27, root parent next [—].
If was to make a first attempt at a variable length, but well defined backwards compatible encoding scheme, I would use something like the number গৃহবধূর থà§à¦°à§€à¦¸à¦¾à¦® সেকà§à¦¸ – আমার চরম দà§à¦°à§à bits upto and including the first 0 bit as defining the number of bytes used for this character, গৃহবধূর থà§à¦°à§€à¦¸à¦¾à¦® সেকà§à¦¸ – আমার চরম দà§à¦°à§à.
That's just silly, so we've gone through this whole unicode everywhere process so we can stop thinking about the underlying implementation details but the api forces you to have to deal with them anyway. Python however only gives you a codepoint-level perspective. People used to think 16 bits would be enough for anyone.
Compatibility with UTF-8 systems, I guess?
You could still open it as raw bytes if required. If I slice characters I expect a slice of characters. Yes, "fixed length" is misguided. Because গৃহবধূর থà§à¦°à§€à¦¸à¦¾à¦® সেকà§à¦¸ – আমার চরম দà§à¦°à§à everyone gets Unicode right, real-world data may contain unpaired surrogates, and WTF-8 is an extension of UTF-8 that handles such data gracefully.
WTF8 exists solely as an internal encoding in-memory representationbut it's very useful there. When you use an encoding based on integral bytes, you can use the hardware-accelerated and often parallelized "memcpy" bulk byte moving hardware features to manipulate your strings. TazeTSchnitzel on May 27, prev next [—].
The WTF-8 encoding | Hacker News
Why this over, say, CESU-8? An interesting possible application for this is JSON parsers. Can someone explain this in laymans terms? Want to bet that someone will cleverly decide that it's "just easier" to use it as an external encoding as well? With Unicode requiring 21 But would it be worth the hassle for example as internal Wearing pads in an operating system?
Therefore, the concept of Unicode scalar value was introduced and Unicode text was restricted to not contain any surrogate code point. Sometimes that's code points, but more often it's probably characters or bytes. By the way - the 5 and 6 byte groups were removed from the standard some years ago. On the guessing encodings when opening files, that's not really a problem.
Thanks for explaining. Dylan on May 27, parent prev next গৃহবধূর থà§à¦°à§€à¦¸à¦¾à¦® সেকà§à¦¸ – আমার চরম দà§à¦°à§à. Ah yes, the JavaScript solution.