11–20 of 315 posts
HN discards emojis in the title. The original emoji was https://emojipedia.org/man-facepalming-medium-light-skin-ton... which consists of 5 Unicode code points. Also please make sure to read the first heading after the title, which summarizes the whole point of this essay.
HN discards emojis in the title. The original emoji was https://emojipedia.org/man-facepalming-medium-light-skin-ton... which consists of 5 Unicode code points. Also please make sure to read the first heading after the title, which summarizes the whole point of this essay.
(2019), for what it's worth.
HN discards emojis in the title. The original emoji was https://emojipedia.org/man-facepalming-medium-light-skin-ton... which consists of 5 Unicode code points. Also please make sure to read the first heading after the title, which summarizes the whole point of this essay.
That makes more sense. I'm sure there could be some language out there where a empty strings length could be 7.
If you want to do Unicode string manipulation and length counting, then use specific functions for that - but the base internal .length function should just output bytes.
Python 3's approach is the most correct: Unicode defines text as a sequence of code points. UTF-whatever is an implementation detail.
Python 3's approach is the most correct: Unicode defines text as a sequence of code points. UTF-whatever is an implementation detail.
HN discards emojis in the title. The original emoji was https://emojipedia.org/man-facepalming-medium-light-skin-ton... which consists of 5 Unicode code points. Also please make sure to read the first heading after the title, which summarizes the whole point of this essay.
Zero width joiner emoji sequences https://emojipedia.org/emoji-zwj-sequence/
> Python 3’s approach is unambiguously the worst one, though. Did I miss the part where he explains this take? It's made up of 5 valid unicode code units. For a language where you're not supposed to need to know the byte size semantics, the correct length should be 5. What am I missing? The close second being 17, because length in bytes. Is another fine way to represent this data, e.g. what a successful write of some…
I think he meant to bring out defensiveness with that quip. He never says that it's a big deal, just that it's the worst way to get the length of a string containing emoji, presumably of the mainstream languages.