4 ms·

> You only get it if you attempt to decode the string which even something like strlen doesn't do. Because strlen() is a count of chars in a null-terminated ch

> You only get it if you attempt to decode the string which even something like strlen doesn't do. Because strlen() is a count of chars in a null-terminated char[], not a decoder. Ever. It's character set agnostic. > Strlen will happily give you wrong answers about how many characters are in a UTF-8 string all day long and never ever attempt to check the validity of the string. Because, again, strlen() counts chars in a null-terminated char[]. It is giving you the right answer, you are asking it the wrong question. > Take your valid UTF-8 and change one of the characters to null, now it doesn't work in many circumstances with 'UTF-8' code. Which means it's not a valid UTF-8 decoder, but is instead treating the buffer as Modified UTF-8[1]. > that I could paste into a 'UNICODE' application Clipboards or pasteboards in many operating systems butcher character set when copying and pasting text. Generally, the clipboard cannot be trusted to do the right thing in every circumstance. On Windows, in particular, character set can get transposed to the system character set or something rather arbitrary when text is copied. > One was a UTF-8 string with BOM and has 0x00 inside :) (I call this string how to tell if it was written with C) > One was a UTF-8 string with a BOM :) Don't use the BOM[2] in UTF-8. It's recommended against. So really, your point is that some implementations are bad, and you have a bag of tricks for breaking implementations that don't handle all corner cases? That's pretty universal even in the non-Unicode world; there's bad implementations of everything. Windows is an especially bad implementation of most things Unicode. A valid decoder will, indeed, consistency-check an arbitrary string of bytes as UTF-8. The OP is correct, and your corner cases don't refute his point. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8#Modified_UTF-8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8#Modified_UTF-8 [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8#Byte_order_mark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8#Byte_order_mark

fleitz 14y ago
A name like strlen suggests that it's designed to take the length of a string, if it was called count_null_ter_char_array then I'd tend to believe you. It's not character set agonistic, it's monotheistic at the shrine of ASCII, it's all over the coding style. Null is valid UTF-8, it just doesn't work with C 'strings'. I can get null out of a UTF-8 encoder with no problem. My point is that UTF-8 is nowhere near the panacea being described and if you have to touch the strings themselves that it's far better to use UTF-16 in the vast majority of cases. The only time you ever really want to use UTF-8 is if you're dealing with legacy codebases, it's a massive hack.
- jsprinkles 14y ago
  > A name like strlen suggests that it's designed to take the length of a string It is. A "string" in C is a char[] (there is no "string" type). A char is a type that is a number. That number has no meaning aside from being a number. Conveniently, you can assign a char like so: char foo = 'b'; That sets the variable foo, of type char, to the value 98. That the 98 means anything, in particular, the letter 'b' in many character sets, is a complete accident and completely orthogonal to char's purpose. A "string" in C is a collection of chars. That is all. No encoding (especially not "the shrine of ASCII"), no purpose beyond being an array of numbers that end in 0, just a bunch of numbers. You are misunderstanding "strings" in C, and by extension, strlen(). This is not a problem with UTF-8. This is a problem with you misunderstanding the C library and basic types. If you don't believe me (I'm right, but, your call), you can certainly download the C99 spec and investigate what a "char" is, what a "string" is (hint: there isn't such a thing at all), and what "strlen()" is designed to be. Here's a simple, naive strlen(): size_t strlen(char *string) { char *p = string; while(*p) p++; return p - string; } That's it. No "monotheism at the shrine of ASCII". It counts chars until it finds 0. It is giving you the right answer. That you don't understand the answer is not UTF-8's (or C's) problem at all. Now, if you want to talk about printf(), I'm listening -- because you might be able to conjure up a point there -- but you are not talking about printf(). This, and other comments, are way off-base on how strlen() works. > Null is valid UTF-8, it just doesn't work with C 'strings'. Sure it does! I can store a null in a char[] all day long. That just changes its behavior when passed to something that counts the length of a char[] before a terminating null (like, wait for it, strlen()). Watch! char buf[8]; buf = "abcde\0f"; What we have here is a buffer of length 8, which contains these char values: 97 98 99 100 101 0 102 0 Now, strlen(buf) is 5. That's because that's what strlen is designed to do. The actual length of the buffer is, amazingly, still eight, and if your code expects to work with all eight chars in the char[], then by golly, it can. If you are using strlen() with any expectation of character set awareness or human alphabet behavior, you completely misunderstand the purpose of strlen(). Since you're so adamant that UTF-16 is better (but you completely misunderstand how C's typing works), I'm less inclined to accept your opinion on UTF-8 being a "massive hack". Explain to me what strlen() on a buffer containing a UTF-16 string does -- and, why that's better -- and I might come around.
- 14y ago

fleitz 14y ago

A name like strlen suggests that it's designed to take the length of a string, if it was called count_null_ter_char_array then I'd tend to believe you. It's not character set agonistic, it's monotheistic at the shrine of ASCII, it's all over the coding style. Null is valid UTF-8, it just doesn't work with C 'strings'. I can get null out of a UTF-8 encoder with no problem. My point is that UTF-8 is nowhere near the panacea being described and if you have to touch the strings themselves that it's far better to use UTF-16 in the vast majority of cases. The only time you ever really want to use UTF-8 is if you're dealing with legacy codebases, it's a massive hack.

jsprinkles 14y ago
> A name like strlen suggests that it's designed to take the length of a string It is. A "string" in C is a char[] (there is no "string" type). A char is a type that is a number. That number has no meaning aside from being a number. Conveniently, you can assign a char like so: char foo = 'b'; That sets the variable foo, of type char, to the value 98. That the 98 means anything, in particular, the letter 'b' in many character sets, is a complete accident and completely orthogonal to char's purpose. A "string" in C is a collection of chars. That is all. No encoding (especially not "the shrine of ASCII"), no purpose beyond being an array of numbers that end in 0, just a bunch of numbers. You are misunderstanding "strings" in C, and by extension, strlen(). This is not a problem with UTF-8. This is a problem with you misunderstanding the C library and basic types. If you don't believe me (I'm right, but, your call), you can certainly download the C99 spec and investigate what a "char" is, what a "string" is (hint: there isn't such a thing at all), and what "strlen()" is designed to be. Here's a simple, naive strlen(): size_t strlen(char *string) { char *p = string; while(*p) p++; return p - string; } That's it. No "monotheism at the shrine of ASCII". It counts chars until it finds 0. It is giving you the right answer. That you don't understand the answer is not UTF-8's (or C's) problem at all. Now, if you want to talk about printf(), I'm listening -- because you might be able to conjure up a point there -- but you are not talking about printf(). This, and other comments, are way off-base on how strlen() works. > Null is valid UTF-8, it just doesn't work with C 'strings'. Sure it does! I can store a null in a char[] all day long. That just changes its behavior when passed to something that counts the length of a char[] before a terminating null (like, wait for it, strlen()). Watch! char buf[8]; buf = "abcde\0f"; What we have here is a buffer of length 8, which contains these char values: 97 98 99 100 101 0 102 0 Now, strlen(buf) is 5. That's because that's what strlen is designed to do. The actual length of the buffer is, amazingly, still eight, and if your code expects to work with all eight chars in the char[], then by golly, it can. If you are using strlen() with any expectation of character set awareness or human alphabet behavior, you completely misunderstand the purpose of strlen(). Since you're so adamant that UTF-16 is better (but you completely misunderstand how C's typing works), I'm less inclined to accept your opinion on UTF-8 being a "massive hack". Explain to me what strlen() on a buffer containing a UTF-16 string does -- and, why that's better -- and I might come around.
14y ago