I'm diving into Unicode for a project and I've come across something puzzling. While looking at the available code points, especially in the 4-byte range, I noticed a ton of undefined codes. I get that new codes might not be defined yet since Unicode hasn't used all the numbers, but what really baffled me are the undefined codes that appear between defined sets, like between adlam and indic-siyaq-numbers. It's even stranger to see undefined codes within specific sets, such as in the ethiopic-extended-b set where several codes are simply unassigned. This adds extra complexity to my implementation since I can't just check the ranges; I have to deal with these undefined codes as well. Is there a reason behind this design choice? I'm wondering if it's just a mess or if there's a valid reasoning behind leaving these gaps. Any insights on this would help a lot!
3 Answers
You’re not alone in finding this frustrating! Think of it like a puzzle: some pieces are missing to allow for changes later. It’s a strategic move, prioritizing flexibility over immediate perfection. As for checking valid codes, you're right to consider unassigned points as potentially valuable in the future. Just implement your checks, and remember, these gaps can actually prevent issues if something new pops up!
Haha, yeah, it’s like preparing for growth! I’ll keep that in mind while I code my project.
Unicode is definitely complex! Just remember that a Unicode code point isn't actually 'undefined'—it's just unassigned. And while it may seem like a hassle to deal with gaps in the code points, this allows for future flexibility. Unicode's designers wanted to ensure that if more characters need to be added, they could do so without disrupting established characters. So, they leave some placeholders open. To make things easier for developers, many languages just import updates directly from the Unicode standard without worrying about these specifics.
I hear you, it's like you learn a lot but sometimes you wonder why it’s so convoluted! Thanks for clarifying that; I’m definitely diving into the documentation to get better at this.
For sure! It makes sense—they’d rather have open spaces than accidentally mess up years’ worth of documents if they reassign code points.
The gaps in Unicode can also be seen as a design choice to allow for expansion. Each block of characters starts at a number that’s divisible by 16, which means there might be unfilled spots if the block doesn’t have a perfect fit. This way, if new characters are needed, they can just occupy the next available unassigned space. Plus, keeping characters organized in sets helps avoid chaos down the line—each new character can slot neatly into a block.
That explains why things are the way they are! But still, can't they just fill the gaps when they define new characters?
Totally. It feels weird to have unused codes, but I guess it helps when the needs of different languages evolve.
I get that perspective! Sometimes you just wish it could be simpler, but I appreciate the thought process behind it.