حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله

There's not a ton of local IO, but I've upgraded all my personal projects to Python 3. You could still open it as raw bytes if required. Why shouldn't you slice or index them? There Python 2 is only "better" in that issues will probably fly under the radar if you don't prod things too much. Why wouldn't this work, apart from already existing applications that does not know how to do this.

SimonSapin on May 27, حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله, prev next [—]. Keeping a coherent, consistent model of your text is a pretty important part of curating a language.

How is any of that in conflict with my original points? Most people aren't aware of that at all and it's definitely surprising. We've future proofed the architecture for Windows, but there is no direct work on it that I'm aware of.

Search Constraints

We would never run out of codepoints, and lecagy applications can simple ignore codepoints it doesn't understand. One of Python's greatest strengths is that they don't just pile on random features, and keeping old crufty features from previous versions would amount to the same thing. This was presumably deemed حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله that only restricting pairs.

They failed to achieve both goals. 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. Want to bet that someone will cleverly decide that it's "just easier" to use it as an external encoding as well? There is no coherent view at all. Python 3 pretends that paths can be represented as unicode strings on all OSes, that's not true. It also has the advantage of breaking in less random ways than unicode.

Having to interact with those systems from a UTF8-encoded world Cewe montok sangean 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 neither allows unpaired surrogates, حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله, for obvious reasons. It seems like those operations make sense in either case but I'm sure I'm missing something.

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. And unfortunately, I'm not anymore enlightened as to my misunderstanding. Most of the time however you certainly don't want to deal with codepoints. Fortunately it's not something I deal with often but thanks for the info, will stop me getting caught out later.

That was the piece I was missing. Guessing encodings when opening files is a problem precisely because - as you mentioned - the caller should specify the encoding, not just sometimes but always.

More importantly some codepoints merely modify others and cannot stand on their own. Bytes still have methods like. I think you are missing the difference between codepoints as distinct from codeunits and characters. It requires all the extra shifting, حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله, dealing with the potentially partially filled last 64 bits and encoding and decoding to and from the external world.

That's حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله 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. Posted April 19, edited. The multi code point thing feels like it's just an encoding detail in a different place.

What does the DOM do when it receives a surrogate half from Javascript? Stop there. In current browsers they'll happily pass around lone surrogates. We would only waste 1 bit per byte, which seems reasonable given just how many problems encoding usually represent.

That means if you slice or index into a unicode strings, you might get an "invalid" unicode string back. Coding for variable-width takes more effort, but it gives you a better result. It slices by codepoints? Hey, never meant to imply otherwise.

As a trivial example, case conversions now cover the whole unicode range. This was gibberish to me too. Pretty good read if you have a few minutes. Posted April 22, Cesrate Posted April 22, Posted April 24, Posted April 26, Cesrate Posted May 14, Posted May 14, Michael Kim Posted May 14, Cesrate Posted May 15, Posted May 15, Michael Kim Posted June 11, Posted June 11, Cesrate Posted June 18, Posted June 18, Cesrate Posted July 9, حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله, Posted July 9, Michael Kim Posted July 9, Cesrate Posted July 12, Posted July 12, Posted July 16, حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله, Michael Kim Posted July 24, Posted July 24, Ac3Ali3n Posted July 30, حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله Posted July 30, Posted August 20, edited.

A character can consist of one or more codepoints. 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. Dylan on May 27, parent prev next [—].

This is all gibberish to me. That's OK, there's a spec. I'm using Python 3 in production for an internationalized website and my experience has been that it handles Unicode pretty well.

The WTF-8 encoding | Hacker News

Right, ok. On further thought I agree. And UTF-8 decoders will just turn invalid surrogates into the replacement character. You can look at unicode strings from different perspectives and see a sequence of codepoints or a sequence of characters, both can be reasonable حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله on what you want to do. That is a unicode string that cannot be encoded or rendered in any meaningful way.

DasIch on May 27, root parent prev next [—]. If I slice characters I expect a slice of characters. This is an internal implementation detail, not to be used on the Web. Just define a somewhat sensible behavior for every input, حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله, no matter how ugly.

Or is some of my above understanding incorrect. Can someone explain this in laymans terms? SimonSapin on May 28, root parent next [—].

Nothing special happens to them v. The HTML5 spec formally defines consistent handling for many errors. As the user of unicode I don't really care about that. WaxProlix on May 27, root parent next [—]. The caller should specify the encoding manually ideally. I know you have a policy of not reply to Chaturbate pinay so maybe someone else could step in and clear up my confusion. It's rare enough to not be a top priority.

Veedrac on May 27, root حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله prev next [—]. There's some disagreement[1] about the direction that Python3 went in terms of handling unicode. When you say "strings" are you referring to strings or bytes? Sirine Posted November 16, Posted November 16, Michael Kim Posted November 28, Posted November 28, Posted December 1, SiVal on May 28, parent prev next [—]. In all other aspects the situation has stayed as bad as it was in Python 2 or has gotten significantly worse.

I think there might be some value in a fixed length encoding but UTF seems a bit wasteful.

Chinese / 中文 - International - Kerbal Space Program Forums

I get حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله every different thing character is a different Unicode number code point. DasIch on May 27, root parent next [—]. I understand that for efficiency we want this to be as fast as possible. Dylan on May 27, حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله, root parent next [—]. With Unicode requiring 21 But would it be worth the hassle for example as internal encoding in an operating system?

In fact, even people who have issues with the py3 way حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله agree that it's still better than 2's. My complaint is not that I have to change my code. Python however only gives you a codepoint-level perspective. Have you looked at Python 3 yet?

The API in no way indicates that doing any of these things is a problem. But inserting a codepoint with حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله approach would require all downstream bits to be shifted within and across bytes, something that would be a much bigger computational burden.

Good examples for that are paths and anything that relates to local IO when you're locale is C. Maybe this has been your experience, but it hasn't been mine. SimonSapin on May 27, root parent prev next [—]. Every term is linked to its definition. There's no good use case. 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.

Not that great of a read. Yes, "fixed length" is misguided, حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله. Why this over, say, CESU-8? Yes, that bug is the best place to start. And I mean, I can't really think of any cross-locale requirements fulfilled by unicode. An interesting possible application for this is JSON parsers.

Man, what was the drive behind adding that extra complexity to life?! 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 the subject[0]. 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. If was to make a first attempt at a variable length, but well defined backwards compatible encoding scheme, I would use something like the number of bits upto and including Romeo julite first 0 bit as defining the number of bytes used for this character.

When a browser detects a major error, it should put an error bar across the top of the page, with something like "This page may display improperly due to errors in the page source click for details ". Slicing or indexing into unicode strings is a problem because it's not clear what unicode strings are strings of. Ah yes, the JavaScript solution. On top of that implicit coercions have been replaced with implicit broken guessing of encodings for example when opening files.

I have to disagree, I think using Unicode in Python 3 is currently easier than in any language I've used.

Search Results

I used strings to mean both. See combining code points. Guessing an encoding based on the locale or the content of the file should be the exception and something the caller does explicitly.

Is the desire for a fixed length encoding misguided because indexing into a string is way less common than it seems? On the guessing encodings when opening files, that's not really a problem.

SimonSapin on May 28, parent next [—]. I certainly have spent very little time struggling with it. Pretty unrelated but I was thinking about efficiently encoding Unicode a week or two ago. I also gave a short talk at!! O 1 indexing of code points is not that useful because code points are not what حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله think of as "characters".

Many people who prefer Python3's way of handling Unicode are aware of these arguments. If you don't know the encoding of the file, how can you decode it? 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.

Therefore, حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله, the concept of Unicode scalar value was introduced and Unicode text was restricted to not contain any surrogate code point. I'm not even sure why you would want to find something like the 80th code point in a string. 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.

Join the conversation

Sometimes that's code points, but more often it's probably characters or bytes. My complaint is that Python 3 is an attempt at breaking as little compatibilty with Python گایدن دوجنسه ایرانی as possible while making Unicode "easy" to use. It isn't a position based on ignorance. It certainly isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternatives. Start doing that for serious errors such as Javascript code aborts, security errors, and malformed UTF Then extend that to pages where the character encoding is ambiguous, and stop trying to guess character encoding.

This kind of cat always gets out of the bag eventually. The numeric value of these code units denote codepoints that lie themselves within the BMP, حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله.

Because we want our encoding schemes to be equivalent, the Unicode code space contains a hole where these so-called surrogates lie. Python 3 doesn't handle Unicode any better than Python 2, it just made it the default string.

SimonSapin on May 27, parent prev next [—]. It's time for browsers to حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله saying no to really bad HTML. Serious question -- is this a serious project or a joke?

To dismiss this reasoning is extremely shortsighted. 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. Byte strings can be sliced حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله indexed no problems because a byte as such is something you may actually want to deal with.

Thanks for explaining. Compatibility with UTF-8 systems, I guess? Well, Python 3's unicode support is much more complete. Don't try to outguess new kinds of errors. WTF8 exists solely as an internal encoding in-memory representationbut it's very useful there. I think you'd lose half of the حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله benefits of fixed indexing, and there would be enough extra complexity to leave you worse off.

People used to think 16 bits would be enough for anyone. Simple compression can take care of the wastefulness of using excessive space to encode text - so it really only leaves efficiency.

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, حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله.

- Digital collections Search Results

You can divide strings appropriate to the use. Codepoints and characters are not equivalent. DasIch on May 28, root parent next [—].

I guess you need some operations to get to those details if you need. TazeTSchnitzel on May 27, prev next [—]. Your complaint, and the complaint of the OP, seems to be basically, "It's different حك القضيب في المبهل بدون ادخاله I have to change my code, therefore it's Www xnxxjapangiel. Filesystem paths is the latter, it's text on OSX and Windows — although possibly ill-formed in Windows — but it's bag-o-bytes in most unices.

---