Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

[IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Rick Troth [tro...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 1:14 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages? On 5/8/23 14:48, Phil Smith III wrote: Seymour J Metz wrote, in part: You seem to be confirming what I wrote; if t

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Rick Troth [tro...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 1:02 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages? Unicode is the way to go in this case. In that space, logical not is "U+00AC", so the

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Rick Troth [tro...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 1:14 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages? On 5/8/23 14:48, Phil Smith III wrote

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

On 5/8/23 14:48, Phil Smith III wrote: Seymour J Metz wrote, in part: You seem to be confirming what I wrote; if the locale is UTF-8 then your character data should be UTF-8. The ¬ character in UTF-8 has a different encoding from the ¬ character in Unicode, so there is no issue of a zero octet.

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

Unicode is the way to go in this case. In that space, logical not is "U+00AC", so the AA you're seeing is wrong. In the 8-bit days (prior to Unicode), I would recommend ISO 8859-1 (so called "Western Latin 1"). There too, logical not is 0xAC. Does this help? -- R; <>< On 5/7/23 09:27,

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

Hi Phil, Tsuris?! ... Maybe farklempt is more apt? (For people of Yeshivish background (like me) Ogmas Nefesh is even closer.) Regards, David On 2023-05-09 00:26, Phil Smith III wrote: Seymour, Since you seem to be getting upset about this academic discussion, I will bow out. No need

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

Smith III [li...@akphs.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 12:26 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages? Seymour, Since you seem to be getting upset about this academic discussion, I will bow out. No need for tsuris over

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

Seymour, Since you seem to be getting upset about this academic discussion, I will bow out. No need for tsuris over this. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

ogical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages? Seymour J Metz wrote, in part: >You seem to be confirming what I wrote; if the locale is UTF-8 then >your character data should be UTF-8. The ¬ character in UTF-8 has a >different encoding from the ¬ character in Unicode, so there is no >issue of

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

Paul Gilmartin wrote, re endianness: >Isn't that a given: ? >(Even in right-to-left languages, which IBM does backward.) So it is, for UTF-8. When you’re dealing with UTF-16 and -32 it seems to matter and that’s what I was thinking of. Good

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

On Mon, 8 May 2023 14:48:25 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote: > > ..., assuming proper UTF-8, ...! > >The above assumes big-endian, of course. > Isn't that a given: ? (Even in right-to-left languages, which IBM does backward.) -- gil

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

Seymour J Metz wrote, in part: >You seem to be confirming what I wrote; if the locale is UTF-8 then >your character data should be UTF-8. The ¬ character in UTF-8 has a >different encoding from the ¬ character in Unicode, so there is no >issue of a zero octet. '00AC'X is not a valid UTF-8 string.

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

(¬) in ASCII-based code pages? On Mon, 8 May 2023 16:21:06 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >Is charout() relevant in a Unicode context? AFAIK, you need to transform >Unicode data with, e.g., UTF-8, For charout() to handle it. > FSVO "relevant": 18 $ locale; rxx "call

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

On Mon, 8 May 2023 16:21:06 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >Is charout() relevant in a Unicode context? AFAIK, you need to transform >Unicode data with, e.g., UTF-8, For charout() to handle it. > FSVO "relevant": 18 $ locale; rxx "call charout , '¬'" | od -tx1 LC_CTYPE="en_US.UTF-8"

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

] on behalf of Paul Gilmartin [042bfe9c879d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 12:11 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages? On Mon, 8 May 2023 15:11:40 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >It's an integer. AC, 0AC, 00AC 00

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

On Mon, 8 May 2023 15:11:40 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >It's an integer. AC, 0AC, 00AC 000AC, ... 00AC 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

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

. From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Phil Smith III Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 11:01 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages? Seymour J Metz wrote, in part: >> “AC” is meaningless in a Unicode c

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+

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

ur J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Phil Smith III [li...@akphs.com] Sent: Sunday, May 7, 2023 1:41 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages? Seymour J Metz wrote: &

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

Subject: Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages? Rony, that page is wonderful! Thanks. This one is sometimes useful as well: https://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~richard/utf-8.cgi every time I go to use it I find the various descriptions a bit confusing (e.g, “Hex code point” vs. “Hex UTF-8 bytes

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

Rony, that page is wonderful! Thanks. This one is sometimes useful as well: https://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~richard/utf-8.cgi every time I go to use it I find the various descriptions a bit confusing (e.g, “Hex code point” vs. “Hex UTF-8 bytes”) but entering a known character makes it clear.

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

On May 7, 2023, at 11:41:45, Phil Smith III wrote: > ... > This is especially confusing since “plain ol’ ASCII” maps directly to the > first part of UTF-8-encoded Unicode. This is of course A Good Thing in > general, but lets people cheat and get away with it—until they don’t. > Yup. In

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

On 07.05.2023 19:41, Phil Smith III wrote: Seymour J Metz wrote: I've seen Logical Not () at AA and at AC. Are there and ASCII-based code pages that have it at a third position? Put another way, is there a third code point that ooRexx and Regina should recognize as ? And later: UTF-8 is just

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

Seymour J Metz wrote: >I've seen Logical Not () at AA and at AC. Are there and ASCII-based >code pages that have it at a third position? Put another way, is there >a third code point that ooRexx and Regina should recognize as ? And later: >UTF-8 is just a transform of Unicode, and the Unicode

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

May 7, 2023 11:14 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages? On Sun, 7 May 2023 13:27:16 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >I've seen Logical Not (¬) at AA and at AC. Are there and ASCII-based code >pages that have it at a third position? Put

Re: Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

On Sun, 7 May 2023 13:27:16 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >I've seen Logical Not (¬) at AA and at AC. Are there and ASCII-based code >pages that have it at a third position? Put another way, is there a third code >point that ooRexx and Regina should recognize as ¬? > C2AC in UTF-8, which I

Logical Nor (¬) in ASCII-based code pages?

I've seen Logical Not (¬) at AA and at AC. Are there and ASCII-based code pages that have it at a third position? Put another way, is there a third code point that ooRexx and Regina should recognize as ¬? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3