On 2014-01-13, at 20:41, Steve Comstock wrote:
> On 1/13/2014 7:05 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
>> The main difference among the various flavors of EBCDIC is where the square
>> brackets are. The rest is mostly accented letters. Who knows how that
>> came about, but I'm sure it's not interesting.
>
Not so much uninteresting as appalling. Various factions at various
times decided that things such as accented characters were more
important than mathematical symbols. Or vice versa. So they
stole the characters they didn't need and replaced them with
those they needed. And so on. Another Whac-a-Mole variant.
> There are 13 EBCDIC characters that vary across EBCDIC character map
> codepages but that must always be defined when using locale settings;
> here are some sample mappings:
>
>
> character: [ ] { } ! \ ^ ~ ` $ | @ #
>
> EBCDIC 1140: BA BB C0 D0 5A E0 B0 A1 79 5B 4F 7C 7B
>
> EBCDIC 500: 4A 5A C0 D0 4F E0 5F A1 79 5B BB 7C 7B
>
> EBCDIC 1047: AD BD C0 D0 5A E0 5F A1 79 5B 4F 7C 7B
>
> EBCDIC 1143 B5 9F 43 47 4F 71 5F DC 51 67 BB EC 63
>
> ASCII / UTF-8: 5B 5D 7B 7D 21 5C 5E 7E 60 24 7C 40 23
>
Not to mention 037, HLASM's favorite.
Should logical "not" be in there also? Don't some IBM languages
rely on it? Or is it stable?
Have I ever mentioned that I hate EBCDIC!?
> <ad>
> The above is from our two day course
>
> "Enterprise COBOL Unicode and XML Support"
>
> http://www.trainersfriend.com/COBOL_Courses/d705descr.htm
>
> </ad>
>
Are you still teaching courses? I thought you had a closeout sale.
-- gil
