We can test ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš by attempting to convert from Latin-1 to UTF-8 with the iconv function and inspecting the output:. Why shouldn't you slice or index them? A character can consist of one or more codepoints. There is no coherent view at all. My complaint is not that I have to change my code. In current browsers they'll happily pass around lone surrogates.
Guessing encodings when opening files is a problem precisely because - as you mentioned - the caller should specify the encoding, not just sometimes but always. Unfortunately, that package currently fails when trying to read in Mansfield Park ; the authors are aware of the issue and are working on a fix. Yes, "fixed length" is misguided, ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš.
PaulHoule on May 27, parent prev next [—]. Hey, never meant to imply otherwise. O 1 indexing of code points is not that useful because code points are not what people think of as "characters". SimonSapin on May 27, root parent prev next [—].
Dylan on May 27, root parent next [—].
Unicode: Emoji, accents, and international text
I'm not even sure why you would want to find Desperate women like the 80th ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš point in a string.
The API in no way indicates that doing any of these things is a problem. What does the DOM do when it receives a surrogate half from Javascript? TazeTSchnitzel on May 27, parent prev next [—]. Now we have a Python 3 that's incompatible to Python 2 but provides almost no significant benefit, solves none of the large well known problems and introduces quite a few new problems. Note that 0xa3the invalid byte from Mansfield Parkcorresponds to a pound sign in the Latin-1 encoding. Bytes still have methods like.
TazeTSchnitzel on May 27, prev next [—]. Byte strings can be sliced and indexed no problems because a byte as such is something you may actually want to deal with. Compatibility with UTF-8 systems, I guess?
It certainly isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternatives. UTF-8 encodes characters using between 1 and 4 bytes each and allows for up to 1, character codes. One of Python's greatest strengths is that they don't just pile on random features, and keeping old crufty features from previous versions ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš amount to the same thing. On Mac OS, R uses an outdated function to make this determination, so it is unable to print most emoji.
Why do I get "â€Â" attached to words such as you in my emails? It - Microsoft Community
There are some other differences between the function which we will highlight below. I'm using Python 3 in production for an internationalized website and my experience has been that it handles Unicode pretty well. The numeric value of these code units denote codepoints that lie themselves within the BMP.
Because we want our encoding ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš to be equivalent, the Unicode code space contains a hole where these so-called surrogates lie. Veedrac on May 27, parent next [—].
How is any of that in conflict with my original points? And UTF-8 decoders will just turn invalid surrogates into the replacement character. SimonSapin on May 28, parent next [—]. DasIch on May 27, root parent next [—]. See combining code points. The others are characters common in Latin languages. Codepoints and characters are not equivalent. Filesystem paths is the latter, it's text on OSX and Windows — although possibly ill-formed in Windows — but it's bag-o-bytes Dogstyle yskaella fujimoto most unices.
And unfortunately, I'm not anymore enlightened as to my misunderstanding. When you say "strings" are you referring to strings or bytes?
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. We can see these characters below. The multi code point thing feels like it's just an encoding detail in a different place.
Coding for variable-width takes more effort, but it gives you a better result. Many people who prefer Python3's way of handling Unicode are aware of these arguments, ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš. This was gibberish to me too. 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.
The name might throw you off, but it's very much serious. As a trivial example, case conversions now cover the ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš unicode range.
Man, what was the drive behind adding that extra complexity to life?! There's not a ton of local IO, but I've upgraded all my personal projects to Python 3. 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 common denominator though.
It's often implicit. With only unique values, a single byte is not enough to encode every character. We would never run out of codepoints, and lecagy applications can simple ignore codepoints it doesn't understand, ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš. Therefore, the concept of Unicode scalar value was introduced and Unicode text was restricted to not contain any surrogate code point.
Slicing or indexing into unicode strings is a problem because it's not clear what unicode strings are strings of. There's some ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš Ago gril sex the direction that Python3 went in terms of handling unicode.
Not that great of a read.
ISO (ISO Latin 1) Character Encoding
SiVal on May 28, parent prev next [—]. 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.
So if you're working in either domain you get a coherent view, the problem being when you're interacting with systems or concepts which straddle the divide or even worse may be in either domain depending on the platform. On Windows, a bug in the current version of R fixed in R-devel prevents using the second ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš. That is not quite true, in the sense that more of the standard library has been made unicode-aware, and implicit conversions between unicode and bytestrings have been removed.
Because not 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. On further thought I agree. As the user of unicode I don't really care about that. Multi-byte encodings allow for encoding more. If I slice characters I expect a slice of characters. The iconvlist function will list the ones that R knows how to process:.
Right, ok. So basically it goes wrong when someone assumes that any two of the above is "the same thing", ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš.
If you need more than reading in a single text file, the readtext package supports reading in text in a variety of file formats and encodings. I thought he was tackling the other problem which is that you frequently find web pages that have both UTF-8 codepoints and single bytes encoded as ISO-latin-1 or Windows This is a solution to a problem I ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš know existed. It slices by codepoints?
Veedrac on May 27, ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš, root parent prev next [—]. This kind of cat always gets out of the bag eventually. 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 ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš allows unpaired surrogates, for obvious reasons.
It's rare enough to not be a top priority. Say you want to input the Unicode character with hexadecimal code 0x You can do so in one of three ways:. Given the context of the byte:. A listing of the Emoji characters is available separately. Fortunately it's not something I deal with often but thanks for the info, will stop me getting caught out later.
Most people aren't aware of that at all and it's definitely surprising. There Python 2 is only "better" in that issues will probably fly under the radar if you don't prod things too much. Good examples for that are paths and anything that relates to local IO when you're locale is C. Mscalin this has been your experience, but it hasn't been mine. WTF8 exists solely as an internal encoding in-memory representationbut it's very useful there.
An interesting possible application for this is JSON parsers. You can divide strings appropriate to the use. Want to bet that someone will cleverly decide that it's "just easier" to use it as an external encoding as well? It might be removed for non-notability. That is a unicode string that cannot be encoded or rendered in any meaningful way.
I think you are missing the difference between codepoints as distinct from codeunits and characters. Python 3 doesn't handle Unicode any better than Python 2, it just made it the default string. To dismiss this reasoning is extremely shortsighted. Most of these codes are currently unassigned, but every year the Unicode consortium meets and adds new characters.
Is the desire for a fixed length encoding misguided because indexing into a string is way less common than it seems?
I guess you need some operations to get to those details if you need. 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 on ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš subject[0]. Sometimes that's code points, but more often it's probably characters or bytes.
Pretty good read if you have a few minutes. DasIch on May 28, root parent next [—]. Or ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš some of my above understanding incorrect. I certainly have spent very little time struggling with it. When you try to print Unicode in R, ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš, the system will first try to determine whether the code is printable or not, ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš.
You can find a list of all of the characters in the Unicode Character Database. SimonSapin on May 27, prev next [—]. This is all gibberish to me. Why this over, say, ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš, CESU-8? TazeTSchnitzel on May 27, root parent next [—]. In all other aspects the situation has stayed as bad as it Tamil Ammayi in Python 2 or has gotten significantly worse.
That was the piece I was missing. 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.
Every term is linked to its definition. In fact, even people who have issues with the py3 way often agree that it's still better than 2's. SimonSapin on May 27, parent prev next [—]. You could still open it as raw bytes if required. There's no good use case. And because of this global confusion, everyone Surprise mother ends up implementing something that somehow does something moronic - so then everyone else has yet another problem they didn't know existed and they all fall into a self-harming spiral of depravity.
Serious question -- is this a serious project or a joke? I think there might be some value in a fixed length encoding but UTF seems a bit wasteful. If you don't know the encoding of the file, how can you decode it? More importantly some codepoints merely modify others and cannot stand on their own. Nothing special happens to them v. Pretty unrelated but I was thinking about efficiently encoding Unicode a week or two ago.
You Tight boobs 18 year girl look at unicode strings from different perspectives and see a sequence ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš codepoints or a sequence of characters, both can be reasonable depending on what you want to do.
Well, Python 3's unicode support is much more complete. Python 3 pretends that paths can be represented as unicode strings on all OSes, that's not true. And I mean, I can't really think of any cross-locale requirements fulfilled by unicode. My complaint is that Python 3 is an attempt at breaking as little compatibilty with Python 2 as possible while making Unicode "easy" to use. They failed to achieve both goals.
I get that every different thing character is a different Unicode number code point. On the guessing encodings when opening files, that's not really a problem. The nature of unicode is that there's always a problem you didn't but should know existed. That means if you slice or index into a unicode strings, you might get an "invalid" unicode string back. Your complaint, ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš, and the complaint of the OP, seems to be basically, "It's different and I have to change my code, therefore it's bad.
The Latin-1 encoding extends ASCII to Latin languages ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš assigning the numbers to hexadecimal 0x80 to 0xff to other common characters in Latin languages. I have to disagree, I think using Unicode in Python 3 is currently easier than in any language I've used. 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.
Why wouldn't this work, apart from already existing applications that does not know how to do this. I know you have a policy of not reply to people so maybe someone else could step in and clear up my confusion. Simple compression can take care of the wastefulness of using excessive space to encode text - so it really only leaves efficiency. We would only waste 1 bit per byte, which seems reasonable given just how many problems encoding usually represent. Python however only gives you a codepoint-level perspective.
That's certainly one important source of errors. This was presumably deemed simpler that only restricting pairs. Non-printable codes include control codes and unassigned codes. Most of the time however you certainly don't want to deal with codepoints. Thanks for explaining. 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.
It isn't a position based on ignorance. Keeping a coherent, consistent model of your text is a pretty important part of curating a language. It seems like those operations make sense in either case but I'm sure I'm missing something. WaxProlix on May 27, ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš, root parent next [—].
Unicode: Emoji, accents, and international text
Note, however, that this is not the only possibility, ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš, and there are many other encodings. I understand that for efficiency we want this to be as fast as possible. The package does not provide a method to translate from another encoding to UTF-8 as the Story fuck movies function from base R already serves this purpose.
The utf8 package provides the following utilities for validating, formatting, and printing UTF-8 characters:. It also has the advantage of breaking in less random ways than unicode. Have you looked at Python 3 yet? If was to make a first attempt at a variable length, but well defined backwards compatible Anal alabi scheme, I would use something like the number of bits upto and including the first 0 bit as defining the number of bytes used for this character.
Ah yes, the JavaScript solution. Can someone explain this in laymans terms? DasIch on May 27, root parent prev next [—]. I used strings to mean both. I also gave a short talk at!! Guessing an encoding based on the locale or the content of the file should be the exception and something the caller does explicitly.
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. On top of that implicit coercions have been replaced with implicit broken guessing of encodings for example when opening files. Dylan on May 27, parent prev next [—]. With Unicode requiring 21 But would it be worth the hassle for example as internal encoding ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš an operating system?
People used to think 16 bits would be enough for anyone. Back to our original problem: getting the text of Mansfield Park into R. Our first attempt failed:. It requires all the ðš‡ðš¡ðš¡ ðšŒðš˜ðš”ðš•ðš’ ðš”ðšŽðš•ðšžðšŠðš› ðš–ðšŠðš—ðš’ ðšðš’ ðš–ðšŽðš–ðš shifting, dealing with the potentially partially filled last 64 bits and encoding and decoding to and from the external world.
The caller should specify the encoding manually ideally.