On 2014-01-13, at 19:05, Steve Smith wrote: > > It seems that HLASM may have wandered into the code-page swamp without a > complete plan. > That's my assessment.
>> On 2014-01-12 17:58, Gainsford, Allen wrote: >> >> ... AD and BD don't correspond to printable >> characters in codepage 037 (or at least not ones that HLASM seems to want >> to handle; it looks to me like they're a capital Y-acute and an umlaut), so >> it looks like it just leaves them alone. >> Looking at the hex of the source and the listing, I see that as the norm. Any EBCDIC character with ASCII value outside the range '40'x-'7E'x is left as untranslated EBCDIC in a CA'...' nominal value. can this really be WAD? On 2014-01-13, at 19:39, Ian S. Worthington wrote: > There's a very anglo-centric attitude towards programming which causes all > sorts of problems in the rest of the worlds where people believe, sometime > rightly, that they shouldn't really have to put up with upside down question > marks and other graffiti in their printed name. > UTF-8 is Latin-centric in that it represents USASCII characters in single bytes; all others in multiple bytes. -- gil
