From: Dan Kogai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Sep 13, 2005, at 07:42 , Paul Marquess wrote: > > Dan, I'm not sure what is going on here. Can I walk through one of > > the failing test to see if it rings any bells with you? > > Before that I would like to make sure if I understand the scope of > the problem correctly. We are talking about the problem in EBCDIC > platform, not DBM_Filter vs. Encode at alarge, right?
Correct. It's only EBCDIC > I wrote a simple script and there seems no problem on ASCII platforms. > > > SO I expect to get these k/v pairs back > > > > 'alpha' => "\xCE\xB1", > > 'beta' => "\xCE\xB2", > > "\xCE\xB3"=> "gamma", > > > > But this is what I actually read from the DBM file. > > > > 'beta' => '¸ž' > > 'alpha' => '¸¨' > > '¸ß' => 'gamma' > > > On ASCII platforms I got what you've expected. Yep - it works fine on ASCII platforms and has done so for a few years. > Sastry, would you clarify the problem a little bit more? If that's > the problem of Encode vs. EBCDIC, say so. It occurs to me DBM_Filter > is not guilty for this case. Paul ___________________________________________________________ Does your mail provider give you FREE antivirus protection? Get Yahoo! Mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
