TIL the assumption that string length does not change when upper-cased is false

Re:TIL the assumption that string length does not change whe... by oefrha on Monday November 22, 2021 @01:13AM (#29303374)

No. In fixed width settings, it’s usually very important to distinguish 0-width characters (I’ll use “characters” for grapheme clusters), 1-width characters, and 2-width characters (e.g. CJK characters and emojis). See wcwidth(3).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:TIL the assumption that string length does not change whe... by DemocracyFTW on Monday November 22, 2021 @05:18AM (#29304842)

Very much so. And one may add that the implementation of UAX#11 "East Asian Width"[1] was done in a myopic, backwards-oriented way in that it only distinguishes between multiples 0, 1 and 2 of a 'character cell' (conceptually equivalent to the width one needs in monospace typesetting to fit in a Latin letter). There are many Unicode glyphs that would need 3 or more units to fit into a given text.

* [1] https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr11/tr11-39.html

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:TIL the assumption that string length does not change whe... by zionic on Monday November 22, 2021 @10:09AM (#29307073)

0-width characters should get a deprecation warning in Language 2.0, along with silent letters and ones that change pronunciation based on the characters surrounding them.

[ Parent | on HN ]