It's an integer. AC, 0AC, 00AC 000AC, ... 000000AC are all the same integer. The U+ is just and indication that the context is Unicode code points; if you already know the context then it's redundant.
I can see a consistency argument against abbreviating, but there is no ambiguity. ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Phil Smith III <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 11:01 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages? Seymour J Metz wrote, in part: >> “AC” is meaningless in a Unicode context. >In the context of a Unicode code point, "AC" is a perfectly >unambiguous abbreviation for U+00AC. In any other context,not so much. No, it’s not: is that a byte x’AC’? Is this big- or little-endian? That’s why the U+ syntax exists. And re which page has the NOT sign at x’aa’: >See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP850#Character_set Oy. That one shows that somebody just didn’t think it would ever matter—which makes sense, Microsoft was tiny, who knew! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
