Some thoughts about String equality

Of course Strings are today in some way Unicode. In this article we assume code points as the building blocks of Strings. That means for example in the Java-world, that we are talking about one code point being comprised of one Java character for typical European languages, using Latin, Greek or Cyrillic alphabets including extensions to support all languages typically using these alphabets, for example. But when moving to Asian languages, a code point can also consist of two Java characters and there are Strings that are illegal from Unicode perspective, because they contain characters that should be combined in a way that cannot be combined properly. So here we assume, that Strings consist of sequences of bytes or two-byte characters or whatever encoding that properly express a sequence of code points. There are many interesting issues when dealing with some Asian languages that we will not cover here today.

Now there are a lot of possibilities to create Strings, that look the same, but are actually different. We are not talking about „0“ and „O“ or „1“ and „l“ and „I“ that might look similar in some fonts, but should not look similar, because we actually depend on their distinctness, even on their visual distinctness. Unfortunately we have the bad habit of using traditional typewriter fonts, that make it hard to distinguish these, for source code, where it would be so crucial. But for today, we just assume that we always look hard enough to solve this issue.

The classical example of what looks the same is whitespace. We have ordinary space “ “ and no break space “ „, that are meant to look exactly the same, but to expose a slightly different behavior. There are tons of possibilities to create exactly the same look with different combinations of whitespace. But this is kind of a special case, because in terms of semantics often carries little information and we want to disregard it to some extent when comparing strings. Typical examples are stripping of leading and trailing whitespace of the string or of the lines contained within it and replacing tabulators with the number of spaces that would be equivalent. Or even to replace any amount of adjacent whitespace within a line by a single space. Again, handling of different whitespace code points might require different rules, so it is good to be careful in not putting to much logic and it is better to rely on a library to at least apply exactly the same rules in equivalent situations.

Another example that we actually might know is that certain characters look the same or almost the same in the Cyrillic, Greek and Latin alphabets. I try to give an idea of the meaning of the Greek and Cyrillic characters, but they depend on the language, the dialect and even the word, the word form or the actual occurrence of the letter in the word…

LatinCyrillicGreekmeaning of Cyrillic Lettermeaning of Greek letter
AАAlike Latinlike Latin
BВBlike Latin VBeta (like V in new Greek)
CСlike Latin S
EЕElike LatinEpsilon (like Latin E)
ГHlike Latin GGamma (like Latin G)
HНΗlike Latin NEta (like Latin I in new Greek)
JЈSerbian Ј, like German J
KКΚlike LatinKappa (like Latin K)
MМΜlike LatinMu (like Latin M)
NΝNu (like Latin N)
OОΟlike LatinOmikron (like Latin O)
PРΡlike Latin RRho (like Latin R)
ПΠlike Latin PPi (like Latin P)
TТΤlike LatinTau (like Latin T)
ФΦlike Latin FPhi (like Latin F)
XХΧlike German CHChi (like German CH)
YУΥlike Latin UUpsilon (like Latin U)
ZΖZeta (like German Z)
IІΙUkrainian IIota (like Latin I)

In this case we usually want the characters to look the same or at least very similar, because that is how to correctly display them, but we do want them to be different when comparing strings.

While these examples are kind of obvious, there is another one that we tend to ignore, but that will eventually catch us. There are so called combining characters, that should actually be named „combining code points“, but here we go. That means that we can put them after a letter and they will combine to form a letter with diacritical marks. A typical example is the letter „U“ that can be combined with two dots “ ̈ ̈“ to form an „Ü“, which looks the same as the „Ü“ that is composed of one code point. It is meant to look the same, but it also has the same meaning, at least for most purposes. What we see is the Glyph. We see the difference when we prefix each code point with a minus or a space: „Ü“ -> „-U-̈“ or “ U ̈“, while the second one is transformed like this: „Ü“ -> „-Ü“ or “ Ü“, as we would expect.

While the way to express the Glyph in such a way with two code points is not very well known and thus not very common, we actually see it already today when we look at Wikipedia articles. In some languages, where the pronunciations is ambiguous, it can be made clear by putting an accent mark on one vowel, as for example Кириллица, which puts an accent mark on the term in the beginning of the article like this: „Кири́ллица“. Since in Cyrillic Alphabet accent marks are unfortunately not used in normal writing, it comes in handy that the combining accent also works with cyrillic letter. When putting minus-signs between the code points it looks like this: „К-и-р-и-́-л-л-и-ц-а“ or with spaces like this: „К и р и ́ л л и ц а“. So Strings that we encounter in our programs will contain these combining characters in the future. While we can prohibit them, it is better to embrace this and it is actually not too hard, if we use decent libraries. Java has the Normalizer class in its built in library, that can convert to one or the other convention of expressing such glyphs and then allowing comparison in the way that we actually mean.

Unfortunately issues like semantic lengths of strings or semantic positions become even harder than they already are after moving from characters to code points. And we can be sure that Unicode has still more to offer to complicate things, if we dig deeper. The typical answer that we get on most web sites that talk about these issues is something like: „The length of strings and positions within strings are surprisingly irrelevant to most programs.“

In the end of the day, jobs that have been trivial in the past are now becoming a big deal and we need to learn to think of comparison, length, position, regular expressions, sorting and all kinds of string functionality with bytes, characters, code points and glyphs in mind.

What can our current libraries already do for us, what are we missing in them, considering different programming languages, databases, text files and network transmission?


Share Button

Program Functionality without Code

Depending on the programming language and the frameworks we use, it is possible to have program functionality that is not happening in actual code that we write in that language. It seems weird, but actually it is something that we have been doing for decades and it has been sold to us as being extremely powerful and useful and sometimes it actually is. Aspect oriented programming is mostly based on this idea…

Typical examples are things we want to be taken care of but we do not want to actually write them ourselves..

Some of these look really great and who wants to deal with memory management today? Unless we do real time programming or special security code where information may not exist in the memory for longer than the actual processing, this is just what we successfully and without too much pain are doing all the time.

While some of these look really great, and have become more or less om there is also some danger in having some very powerful implicit functionality, like transaction management. While it looks tempting to delegate transaction management to a framework, because it is annoying and it is not really understood very well by most application developers, there comes some danger with it. This is even worse if it is used in conjunction with something like JPA or Hibernate… Assuming we have a framework that wraps methods marked with an annotation like „@Transactional“, meaning that this method call should be wrapped into a transaction (java-like pseudo-code):

public X myMethod(Y y)  {
   X result = do_something(y);
   return result;

being roughly equivalent to

public  X myMethod(Y y) {
  TransactionContext ctx = getTransactionContext();
  try {
      X result = do_something(y);
      return result;
   } catch (Exception ex) {
      throw ex;

Yes, it is more elegant to just annotate it.
But now we program something like this:

public Function myMethod(Y y) {

where we actually enclose something into the function and give it back. Now when calling the function, we might get an error, because it encloses stuff from the time, when the transaction was actually still open, while it has been committed by the time, the function is actually called. So in frameworks that force the usage of such annotated transaction handling, such beautiful functional style programming patterns may actually not work and need to be avoided or at least constrained to the cases that do still work. This can be a reasonable price to pay, but it is important, to understand the constraints, that come with this implicit functionality.

Another interesting area that comes with a lot of potential functionality is correlated with authorization. Assuming we have a company that sells some services or products and we have key account managers that use the software we have written. Now for whatever reasons, they should only be able to see the data about their own customers, possibly data for customers for whose key account manager they are the deputy. Or if they are the boss of some key account managers, maybe they can see all of their data…

Now a function

List listCustomers() {

gives different results, depending on who is using it. This introduces an implicit invisible parameter. And however smart the user of this software is, he only sees what he is supposed to see, unless the software has some vulnerabilities, which it probably has.

So whenever we read such code that we have not written ourselves and have not written yesterday, there may be surprises about what it does. It is an interesting question how to test this with a good coverage of all constellations for implicit parameters. Anyway, we have to get used to it and embrace it, it is an integral part of our software ecosystem. But it is also important to use these powerful mechanisms only where they are really so helpful that it is worth the loss in clarity and explicitness.

While annotations are at least in place to be found, there are also other ways. Typically xml files can be used to configure such stuff. Or it can be done programmatically in a totally different place of the software by setting up some hooks, for example. Without good documentation or good information flow within the team, this may be hard to find.

Share Button