On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 13:13:01 -0400, Tony Harminc wrote: > >> Alas, poor UTF-8, so pervasively used elsewhere. > >It's a fine interchange format, but a huge pain to actually process. > An offsetting advantage is that UTF-8 strings can be embedded as quoted strings in most languages as if they were USASCII.
I've submitted an RCF in the HLASM User's Guide asking which pair of CCSIDs are implied by the TRANSLATE(AS) option. I hope they don't just refer me to the source of the 256-byte table. >Which is doubtless why zArch has these instructions: > >• CONVERT UTF-16 TO UTF-8 >• CONVERT UTF-32 TO UTF-8 >• CONVERT UTF-8 TO UTF-16 >• CONVERT UTF-8 TO UTF-32 > UTF-16 would seem to be the worst of both worlds: it lacks the USASCII compatibility of UTF-8, yet it's a variable-length encoding with attendant processing complications. (I can scarcely imagine the complexity of the microcode.) I also see: * CONVERT UNICODE TO UTF-8 * CONVERT UTF-8 TO UNICODE What's "UNICODE"? I suppose it's in a glossary somewhere. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
