3 ms·

Worse still, Python strings aren’t even valid Unicode, because they’re sequences of code points rather than scalar values as they should be; and so even UTF–8‐e

Worse still, Python strings aren’t even valid Unicode, because they’re sequences of code points rather than scalar values as they should be; and so even UTF–8‐encoding a str is fallible: >>> '\udead'.encode('utf-8') Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> UnicodeEncodeError: 'utf-8' codec can't encode character '\udead' in position 0: surrogates not allowed

kazinator 4y ago
That should Just Do What It's Told and produce ED BA AD.
- chrismorgan 4y ago
  That would be baad, because it would not be valid UTF-8. Surrogates are a mess. Blame UTF-16. It was a terrible idea that never should have been implemented.
  - morelisp 4y ago
    Both you and parent are correct. (It should have been valid UTF-8, in practice it often is treated as such anyway. It should also never have existed in the first place.)
    - chrismorgan 4y ago
      No, it should not have been valid UTF-8, and nothing that validates UTF-8 (which is the considerable majority of things these days, though certainly not all) will accept it. UTF-16 fundamentally can’t represent surrogates: 0x0000 to 0xd7ff represent U+0000 to U+D7FF, and pairs of 0xd800–0xdbff (1024 code units) and 0xdc00–0xdfff (1024 code units) represent U+10000 to U+10FFFF (1024² code point), and there’s nothing left that could represent U+D800–U+DFFF. With UTF-16, there were two possible choices: either make UTF-16 an incomplete encoding, unable to represent some Unicode text, or separate surrogates out as reserved for UTF-16, not encodable and not permitted in Unicode text. Neither solution is good (because too much software doesn’t validate Unicode, and too much software treats UTF-16 more like UCS-2), and the correct answer would have been to throw away UCS-2 as a failed experiment and never invent UTF-16, but here we are now. They decided in favour of consistency between Unicode Transformation Formats, which is fairly clearly the better of the first two choices.
      - account42 4y ago
        > No, it should not have been valid UTF-8, and nothing that validates UTF-8 (which is the considerable majority of things these days, though certainly not all) will accept it. Yes it should as those code points should have never been reserved. UTF-8 should only concern itself with encoding arbitrary 24-bit integers. And that those characters are reserved is also useful in practice because lots of things are encoded in UCS2 uhhm I mean "UTF-16" where unpaired surrogates are the reality. Hence: https://simonsapin.github.io/wtf-8/ https://simonsapin.github.io/wtf-8/ That UTF-16 can't represent those code points is UTF-16's problem and should have been solved by those clinging to their UCS2 codebases instead of being enshrined in Unicode. It would have certainly been possible to make a 16-bit Unicode encoding that is as much UCS2-compatible as UTF-16 is but can represent all code points. Also, almost nothing should validate UTF-8.
        chrismorgan 4y ago
        Unicode Transformation Formats are designed to be equivalent in what they can encode. This is simple fact, and sane. Yes, I hate how UTF-16 ruined Unicode, and the typical absence of validation of UTF-16 is a problem, but given the abomination that is UTF-16, surrogates not being part of valid Unicode strings is certainly a better course of action than UTF-16 being unable to represent certain Unicode strings. Just about everything should validate UTF-8, because if you don’t, various invariants that you depend on will break. As a simple example, if you operate on unvalidated UTF-8, then all kinds of operations that care about code points will have to check that they’re in-bounds at every single code unit, because to do otherwise would be memory-unsafe, risking crashing or possibly worse. It’s faster and much more peaceful if you validate UTF-8 in all strings at time of ingress, once for all. Given Rust’s preferences for correctness and performance, it is very clearly in the right in validating UTF-8 in all strings.
        kazinator 4y ago
        > surrogates not being part of valid Unicode strings is certainly a better course of action than UTF-16 being unable to represent certain Unicode strings. I'm okay with people not being able to paste emojis into the Windows port of an application; get yourself a better OS whose wide characters are 32 bits. The Basic Multilingual Plane is good enough for business purposes in the developed world. Surrogates are just some nonsense for Windows and some languages that start with J.

kazinator 4y ago

That should Just Do What It's Told and produce ED BA AD.

chrismorgan 4y ago
That would be baad, because it would not be valid UTF-8. Surrogates are a mess. Blame UTF-16. It was a terrible idea that never should have been implemented.
- morelisp 4y ago
  Both you and parent are correct. (It should have been valid UTF-8, in practice it often is treated as such anyway. It should also never have existed in the first place.)
  - chrismorgan 4y ago
    No, it should not have been valid UTF-8, and nothing that validates UTF-8 (which is the considerable majority of things these days, though certainly not all) will accept it. UTF-16 fundamentally can’t represent surrogates: 0x0000 to 0xd7ff represent U+0000 to U+D7FF, and pairs of 0xd800–0xdbff (1024 code units) and 0xdc00–0xdfff (1024 code units) represent U+10000 to U+10FFFF (1024² code point), and there’s nothing left that could represent U+D800–U+DFFF. With UTF-16, there were two possible choices: either make UTF-16 an incomplete encoding, unable to represent some Unicode text, or separate surrogates out as reserved for UTF-16, not encodable and not permitted in Unicode text. Neither solution is good (because too much software doesn’t validate Unicode, and too much software treats UTF-16 more like UCS-2), and the correct answer would have been to throw away UCS-2 as a failed experiment and never invent UTF-16, but here we are now. They decided in favour of consistency between Unicode Transformation Formats, which is fairly clearly the better of the first two choices.
    - account42 4y ago
      > No, it should not have been valid UTF-8, and nothing that validates UTF-8 (which is the considerable majority of things these days, though certainly not all) will accept it. Yes it should as those code points should have never been reserved. UTF-8 should only concern itself with encoding arbitrary 24-bit integers. And that those characters are reserved is also useful in practice because lots of things are encoded in UCS2 uhhm I mean "UTF-16" where unpaired surrogates are the reality. Hence: https://simonsapin.github.io/wtf-8/ https://simonsapin.github.io/wtf-8/ That UTF-16 can't represent those code points is UTF-16's problem and should have been solved by those clinging to their UCS2 codebases instead of being enshrined in Unicode. It would have certainly been possible to make a 16-bit Unicode encoding that is as much UCS2-compatible as UTF-16 is but can represent all code points. Also, almost nothing should validate UTF-8.
      - chrismorgan 4y ago
        Unicode Transformation Formats are designed to be equivalent in what they can encode. This is simple fact, and sane. Yes, I hate how UTF-16 ruined Unicode, and the typical absence of validation of UTF-16 is a problem, but given the abomination that is UTF-16, surrogates not being part of valid Unicode strings is certainly a better course of action than UTF-16 being unable to represent certain Unicode strings. Just about everything should validate UTF-8, because if you don’t, various invariants that you depend on will break. As a simple example, if you operate on unvalidated UTF-8, then all kinds of operations that care about code points will have to check that they’re in-bounds at every single code unit, because to do otherwise would be memory-unsafe, risking crashing or possibly worse. It’s faster and much more peaceful if you validate UTF-8 in all strings at time of ingress, once for all. Given Rust’s preferences for correctness and performance, it is very clearly in the right in validating UTF-8 in all strings.
        kazinator 4y ago
        > surrogates not being part of valid Unicode strings is certainly a better course of action than UTF-16 being unable to represent certain Unicode strings. I'm okay with people not being able to paste emojis into the Windows port of an application; get yourself a better OS whose wide characters are 32 bits. The Basic Multilingual Plane is good enough for business purposes in the developed world. Surrogates are just some nonsense for Windows and some languages that start with J.