On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:08:47 +0100, Rupert Reynolds wrote: >Charles: Good points well made. Yes, I agree that UTF-16 offers no >advantage to me. UTF-32 has to be considered for performance in string >handling functions. I may end up defaulting to UTF-8 on disc, and >converting to the others when needed. > Does "when needed" cover importing/exporting data to foreign systems?
I have mixed feelings about z/OS's facility of tagging files with CCSID. From a POSIX purist's viewpoint it's a repugnant extension. OTOH, ISPF View/Edit's support of tagging is excellent. I can Edit a UTF-8 file and characters display clearly, only limited by the CCSID of the terminal. But won't honor CCSID tagging of macros. (Does ISPF support any DBCS terminals? Which?) >The system's source and compiler (crude but working) are all written in >7-bit ASCII to keep things simple, but data can be any value--I'm not a big >fan of stringz :-) > 7-bit ASCII doesn't well support UTF-8. Rely on UTF-8's being a superset of USASCII and consider all non-ASCII characters ordinary, not metacharacters. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
