[PATCH] IBM z/OS + EBCDIC support

2015-04-23 Thread Daniel Richard G.
will be happy to provide further testing and answer any questions as needed. --Daniel P.S.: Please Cc: me in any replies, as I am not subscribed to this list. -- Daniel Richard G. || sk...@iskunk.org My ASCII-art .sig got a bad case of Times New Roman. Index: Build.sh

Re: [PATCH] IBM z/OS + EBCDIC support

2015-04-24 Thread Daniel Richard G.
.signatures in variable-width fonts, there would still be a little ASCII skunk down below ^_^ --Daniel -- Daniel Richard G. || sk...@iskunk.org My ASCII-art .sig got a bad case of Times New Roman.

Re: [PATCH] IBM z/OS + EBCDIC support

2015-05-07 Thread Daniel Richard G.
On Wed, 2015 May 6 20:22+, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Daniel Richard G. dixit: Unless we convert EBCDIC to Unicode ourselves (as opposed to letting the system do it; I’m currently convinced that we really want to do this actually, since we don’t support them all anyway). If you bundle a set

Re: [PATCH] IBM z/OS + EBCDIC support

2017-04-22 Thread Daniel Richard G.
drop me a line ;) > > Thanks! > > I hope to be able to get back to that offer eventually. Glad to know > you’re still interested after two years. Mainframes are not a platform for the impatient... at least not if one has to deal with IBM ^_^ On Fri, 2017 Apr 21 20:20+, Thors

Re: [PATCH] IBM z/OS + EBCDIC support

2017-04-24 Thread Daniel Richard G.
ib, specifically lib/c-ctype.h, for inspiration. I helped them get their ctype implementation in order on z/OS (and at one point we were even trying to deal with *signed* EBCDIC chars, where 'A' has a negative value!), and it works solidly now. They've got a good design for dealing with non-ASCII weirdness; they were clearly thinking of that from the start. Happy hacking, --Daniel -- Daniel Richard G. || sk...@iskunk.org My ASCII-art .sig got a bad case of Times New Roman.

Re: [PATCH] IBM z/OS + EBCDIC support

2017-04-26 Thread Daniel Richard G.
t looks extremely… IBM. So > maybe we can or have to make do with etoa and its limitations… > probably still enough at this point. Don't forget that ISO 8859-1 is equivalent to the first 256 codepoints of Unicode ;) --Daniel -- Daniel Richard G. || sk...@iskunk.org My ASCII-art .sig got a bad case of Times New Roman.

Re: mksh on EBCDIC, testing

2017-05-03 Thread Daniel Richard G.
\072\073\074\075\076\077 <41><42><43><44><45><46><47><48><49><4A>.<(+|&<51><52> instead of the \072\073\074\075\076\077 .<(+|& that you are probably seeing. (You may be taking this into account already, but I wanted to make sure.) --Daniel -- Daniel Richard G. || sk...@iskunk.org My ASCII-art .sig got a bad case of Times New Roman.

Re: \uXXXX on EBCDIC systems (was Re: [PATCH] IBM z/OS + EBCDIC support)

2017-05-03 Thread Daniel Richard G.
on't know if there are use cases where this may yield unintuitive results... perhaps if this "nega-UTF-8" were redirected to a file and then processed further in z/OS, that may lead to some surprises. But in terms of doing something sensible when using a "\u" escape in an envi

Re: mksh on EBCDIC, testing

2017-05-04 Thread Daniel Richard G.
Yoda quote seems applicable: "You must unlearn, what you have learned." :-) --Daniel -- Daniel Richard G. || sk...@iskunk.org My ASCII-art .sig got a bad case of Times New Roman. mksh-build.txt.gz Description: application/gzip mksh-test.txt.gz Description: application/gzip