[swift-evolution] Trial balloon: Ensure that String always contains valid Unicode
kevin at sb.org
Mon Jan 4 13:37:22 CST 2016
I agree in principle that it would be great if String could enforce that
it's always valid.
But unfortunately, in practice, there's no way to do that without making
it expensive to bridge from Obj-C. Because, as you've demonstrated, you
can create NSStrings that contain things that aren't actually valid
unicode sequences, every single bridge from an NSString to a String
would have to be checked for validity. Not only that, but it's not clear
what the behavior would be if an invalid string is found, since these
bridges are unconditional - would Swift panic? Would it silently replace
the invalid sequence with U+FFFD? Or something else entirely? But the
question doesn't really matter, because turning these bridges from O(1)
into O(N) would be an unacceptable performance penalty anyway.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015, at 01:47 PM, Paul Cantrell via swift-evolution wrote:
> I was quite surprised to learn that it’s possible to create Swift
> strings that do not contain things other than valid Unicode
> characters. Is it feasible to guarantee that this cannot happen?
> String.init(bytes:encoding:) is failable, and does in fact validate
> that the given bytes are decodable with the given encoding in most
> // Returns nil String( bytes: [0xD8, 0x00] as [UInt8],
> encoding: NSUTF8StringEncoding)
> However, that initializer does *not* reject invalid surrogate
> characters in UTF-16:
> // Succeeds (wat?!) let bogusStr = String( bytes: [0xD8, 0x00]
> as [UInt8], encoding: NSUTF16BigEndianStringEncoding)!
> Ever wonder why dataWithJSONObject(…) is declared “throws?” Now
> you know!
> // Throws an error try! NSJSONSerialization.dataWithJSONObject(
> ["foo": bogusStr], options: )
> And why does the URL escaping method in Foundation return an optional
> even though it escapes the string using UTF-8, which is a complete
> Unicode encoding? Same reason:
> // Returns nil
> AFAIK, the first method could lose its “throws” modifier and the
> second method would not need to return an optional if only String
> itself guaranteed that it would always contain valid Unicode. There
> are likely other APIs that would see similar benefits.
> Are there downsides to making all String initializers guarantee that
> the Strings always contain valid Unicode? I can think of two
> * Is there some circumstance where you actually want a String to
> contain unpaired UTF-16 surrogate characters? I can’t imagine what
> that would be, but perhaps someone else can.
> * Is it important to ensure that String.init(…) is O(1) when it
> uses UTF-16? This seems thin: I assume that the library has to
> copy the raw bytes regardless, and it’s O(n) for other character
> encodings, so…?
> swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution