On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 09:55:08 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>Thank you -- I did not know about not. I see here
>https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/operator_alternative that there is
>a whole family of these including not_eq.
>
>I have encountered IBM files that used the C++ trigraphs: ??< for { and so
>forth. What an unreadable mess! (IMHO, obviously)
>
I understand that some compilers have a #pragma that disables trigraphs.
Alas, "#" may not be entirely portable and may need to be coded as a
trigraph.
("???????" has been used as a TBD by some programmers.)
I know some ASCII-partisan programmers who blame the whole trigraph
mess on EBCDIC and its Babel of code pages.
Bill Waite who has his own conventions of portable code has
a convention of starting each input file with a line consisting
of the entire character set, used as a translate table afterward.
Some processors have very good heuristics for detecting UTF-8,
which has enough redundancy to enable the detection. There's
some ambiguity in that ASCII is a proper subset of UTF-8.
Likewise, HLASM can by inspection distinguish ASCII from EBCDIC
source. But only CP 819 and CP 037, respectively.
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
