Skip to main content

A Unicode fgetc() in PHP

In preparation for a presentation I’m giving at this month’s Syracuse PHP Users Group meeting, I found the need to read in Unicode characters in PHP one at a time. Unicode is still second-class in PHP; PHP6 failed and we have to fallback to extensions like the mbstring extension and/or libraries like Portable UTF-8. And even with those, I didn’t see a unicode-capable fgetc() so I wrote my own.

Years ago, I wrote a post describing how to read Unicode characters in C, so the logic was already familiar. As a refresher, UTF-8 is a multi-byte encoding scheme capable of representing over 2 million characters using 4 bytes or less. The first 128 characters are encoded the same as 7-bit ASCII with 0 as the most-significant bit. The other characters are encoded using multiple bytes, each byte with 1 as the most-significant bit. The bit pattern in the first byte of a multi-byte sequence tells us how many bytes are needed to represent the character.

Here’s what the function looks like:

function ufgetc($fp)
{
    // mask values for first byte's bit patterns
    static $mask = [
        192, // 110xxxxx
        224, // 1110xxxx
        240  // 11110xxx
    ];

    // read first byte
    $ch = fgetc($fp);
    if ($ch === false) {
        // return false on EOF
        return false;
    }

    // single-byte character
    if ((ord($ch) & $mask[0]) != $mask[0]) {
        return $ch;
    }

    // multi-byte character
    $buf = $ch;
    for ($i = 0; $i < count($mask); $i++) {
        if ((ord($ch) & $mask[$i]) != $mask[$i]) {
            break;
        }
        $buf .= fgetc($fp);
    }
    return $buf;
}
PHP’s fgetc() reads in 8 bits at a time just like it’s counterpart in C, but these bytes are represented as a single-character string in PHP’s type system so we need to use the byte’s integer value for the mask check to succeed.

Comments

  1. Hi Timothy, thanks for sharing the code, saved me a lot of time !
    regards Lars

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What's Wrong with OOP

Proponents of Object Oriented Programming feel the paradigm yields code that is better organized, easier to understand and maintain, and reusable. They view procedural programming code as unwieldy spaghetti and embrace OO-centric design patterns as the "right way" to do things. They argue objects are easier to grasp because they model how we view the world. If the popularity of languages like Java and C# is any indication, they may be right. But after almost 20 years of OOP in the mainstream, there's still a large portion of programmers who resist it. If objects truly model the way people think of things in the real world, then why do people have a hard time understanding and working in OOP? I suspect the problem might be the focus on objects instead of actions. If I may quote from Steve Yegge's Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns : Verbs in Javaland are responsible for all the work, but as they are held in contempt by all, no Verb is ever permitted to wander about ...

Learning Prolog

I'm not quite sure exactly I was searching for, but somehow I serendipitously stumbled upon the site learnprolognow.org a few months ago. It's the home for an introductory Prolog programming course. Logic programming offers an interesting way to think about your problems; I've been doing so much procedural and object-oriented programming in the past decade that it really took effort to think at a higher level! I found the most interesting features to be definite clause grammars (DCG), and unification. Difference lists are very powerful and Prolog's DCG syntax makes it easy to work with them. Specifying a grammar such as: s(s(NP,VP)) --> np(NP,X,Y,subject), vp(VP,X,Y). np(np(DET,NBAR,PP),X,Y,_) --> det(DET,X), nbar(NBAR,X,Y), pp(PP). np(np(DET,NBAR),X,Y,_) --> det(DET,X), nbar(NBAR,X,Y). np(np(PRO),X,Y,Z) --> pro(PRO,X,Y,Z). vp(vp(V),X,Y) --> v(V,X,Y). vp(vp(V,NP),X,Y) --> v(V,X,Y), np(NP,_,_,object). nbar(nbar(JP),X,3) --> jp(JP,X). pp(pp(PREP,N...

Does Esperanto-USA have a Transparency Problem?

I’ve been an active member of Esperanto-USA for many years, even serving on its board of directors. I wanted to help build a strong, healthy national organization that effectively promotes Esperanto in the United States. But when I stepped down from the board, that desire didn’t end. I continued to bring problems to the attention of the organization, ranging from member rights to strategy to proper governance. I’ve decided to be public about this latest issue because of its seriousness and because of how the board has been secretive about it. The membership deserves to know what is done in their name. What Happened In November 2025, the board of Esperanto-USA sent a formal letter to Esperanto-Ligo en Israelo (ELI) with a copy to UEA, concerning an article published in ELI’s bulletin. The article, written by Eduardo Topol, contained inflammatory political content. And although I agree that the article was extremely offensive, the board’s decision to inj...