On 1/14/2014 12:26 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
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?
No, the characters above are the only ones that appear in all EBCDIC
code pages, just not always in the same location. I don't believe
'¬' is in all EBCDIC code pages For example, you will not find this
character in 423 (EBCDIC Greek) nor 870 (EBCDIC Latin-2), etc..
Two very helpful sources:
http://www.tachyonsoft.com/cpindex.htm
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/i/software/globalization/codepages.html
Have I ever mentioned that I hate EBCDIC!?
Hmmmm. Once or twice. :-)
-Steve
<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
