UTF8、代码点及其Erlang和Elixir表示

wbrvyc0a  于 2022-12-08  发布在  Erlang
关注(0)|答案(2)|浏览(167)

going through Elixir's handling of unicode:

iex> String.codepoints("abc§")
["a", "b", "c", "§"]

very good, and byte_size/2 of this is not 4 but 5, because the last char is taking 2 bytes, I get that.
The ? operator (or is it a macro? can't find the answer) tells me that

iex(69)> ?§
167

Great; so then I look into the UTF-8 encoding table, and see value c2 a7 as hex encoding for the char. That means the two bytes (as witnessed by byte_size/1) are c2 (94 in decimal) and a7 (167 in decimal). That 167 is the result I got when evaluating earlier. What I don't understand, exactly, is.. why that number is a "code point", as per the description of the ? operator. When I try to work backwards, and evaluate the binary, I get what I want:

iex(72)> <<0xc2, 0xa7>>
"§"

And to make me go completely bananas, this is what I get in Erlang shell:

24> <<167>>.
<<"§">>
25> <<"\x{a7}">>.
<<"§">>
26> <<"\x{c2}\x{a7}">>.
<<"§"/utf8>>
27> <<"\x{c2a7}">>.    
<<"§">>

!! while Elixir is only happy with the code above... what is it that I don't understand? Why is Erlang perfectly happy with a single byte, given that Elixir insists that char takes 2 bytes - and Unicode table seems to agree?

goqiplq2

goqiplq21#

代码点是Unicode字符的标识符。§的代码点是167(0xA 7)。代码点可以用不同的方式以字节表示,这取决于您选择的编码。
这里的混淆来自于这样一个事实,即当编码为UTF-8时,码点167(0xA 7)由字节0xC 2 0xA 7标识。
当您将Erlang添加到对话中时,您必须记住Erlang的默认编码是/是latin 1(有人试图迁移到UTF-8,但我不确定它是否已迁移到shell -请有人纠正我)。
在latin 1中,码点§(0xA 7)也由字节0xA 7表示。因此,直接解释您的结果:

24> <<167>>.
<<"§">> %% this is encoded in latin1

25> <<"\x{a7}">>.
<<"§">> %% still latin1

26> <<"\x{c2}\x{a7}">>.
<<"§"/utf8>> %% this is encoded in utf8, as the /utf8 modifier says

27> <<"\x{c2a7}">>.
<<"§">>  %% this is latin1

最后一个例子很有趣,也可能会让人困惑。在Erlang二进制文件中,如果你传递一个大于255的整数,它会被截断。所以最后一个例子实际上是在做<<49831>>,当截断时它会变成<<167>>,它同样等价于latin 1中的<<"§">>

guykilcj

guykilcj2#

The code point is a number assigned to the character. It's an abstract value, not dependent on any particular representation in actual memory somewhere.
In order to store the character, you have to convert the code point to some sequence of bytes. There are several different ways to do this; each is called a Unicode Transformation Format, and named UTF-n, where the n is the number of bits in the basic unit of encoding. There used to be a UTF-7, used where 7-bit ASCII was assumed and even the 8th bit of a byte couldn't be reliably transmitted; in modern systems, there are UTF-8, UTF-16, and UTF-32.
Since the largest code point value fits comfortably in 21 bits, UTF-32 is the simplest; you just store the code point as a 32-bit integer. (There could theoretically be a UTF-24 or even a UTF-21, but common modern computing platforms deal naturally with values that take up either exactly 8 or a multiple of 16 bits, and have to work harder to deal with anything else.)
So UTF-32 is simple, but inefficient. Not only does it have 11 extra bits that will never be needed, it has 5 bits that are almost never needed. Far and away most Unicode characters found in the wild are in the Basic Multilingual Plane, U+0000 through U+FFFF. UTF-16 lets you represent all of those code points as a plain integer, taking up half the space of UTF-32. But it can't represent anything from U+10000 on up that way, so part of the 0000-FFFF range is reserved as "surrogate pairs" that can be put together to represent a high-plane Unicode character with two 16-bit units, for a total of 32 bits again but only when needed.
Java uses UTF-16 internally, but Erlang (and therefore Elixir), along with most other programming systems, uses UTF-8. UTF-8 has the advantage of completely transparent compatibility with ASCII - all characters in the ASCII range (U+0000 through U+007F, or 0-127 decimal) are represented by single bytes with the corresponding value. But any characters with code points outside the ASCII range require more than one byte each - even those in the range U+0080 through U+00FF, decimal 128 through 255, which only take up one byte in the Latin-1 encoding that used to be the default before Unicode.
So with Elixir/Erlang "binaries", unless you go out of your way to encode things differently, you are using UTF-8. If you look at the high bit of the first byte of a UTF-8 character, it's either 0, meaning you have a one-byte ASCII character, or it's 1. If it's 1, then the second-highest bit is also 1, because the number of consecutive 1-bits counting down from the high bit before you get to a 0 bit tells you how many bytes total the character takes up. So the pattern 110xxxxx means the character is two bytes, 1110xxxx means three bytes, and 11110xxx means four bytes. (There is no legal UTF-8 character that requires more than four bytes, although the encoding could theoretically support up to seven.)
The rest of the bytes all have the two high bits set to 10, so they can't be mistaken for the start of a character. And the rest of the bits are the code point itself.
To use your case as an example, the code point for "§" is U+00A7 - that is, hexadecimal A7, which is decimal 167 or binary 10100111. Since that's greater than decimal 127, it will require two bytes in UTF-8. Those two bytes will have the binary form 110abcde 10fghijk , where the bits abcdefghijk will hold the code point. So the binary representation of the code point, 10100111, is padded out to 00010100111 and split unto the sequences 00010, which replaces abcde in the UTF-8 template, and 100111, which replaces fghijk . That yields two bytes with binary values 11000010 and 10100111, which are C2 and A7 in hexadecimal, or 194 and 167 in decimal.
You'll notice that the second byte coincidentally has the same value as the code point you're encoding, but t's important to realize that this correspondence is just a coincidence. There are a total of 64 code points, from 128 (U+0080) through 191 (U+00BF), that work out that way: their UTF-8 encoding consists of a byte with decimal value 194 followed by a byte whose value is equal to the code point itself. But for the other 1,114,048 code points possible in Unicode, that is not the case.

相关问题