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
On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 15:14:21 -0400, Tony Harminc wrote:
>
>>>It's worth getting a copy of the SHARE ÆCS report to see what the
>>>state of character encoding and standardization was like in 1989.
>>>
>On 8 August 2018 at 13:03, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>> Is it available?
>
>I thought I had seen it on
On 8 August 2018 at 13:03, Paul Gilmartin
<000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 23:38:07 -0400, Tony Harminc wrote:
>>It's worth getting a copy of the SHARE ÆCS report to see what the
>>state of character encoding and standardization was like in 1989.
>>
>
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 10:23 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
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
ded, and the price is right.
>
> Charles
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Steve Smith
> Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 1:06 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: EBCDIC (was
HxD highly recommended, and the price is right.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Steve Smith
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 1:06 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters
quot; and get substituted even in string
literals and comments.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 12:07 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: EBCDIC (wa
I'll second that recommendation... HxD is very useful, and well-designed.
I'll also second the notion of a long vacation in Italy. I've done that,
but it's much too long ago.
sas
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Nightwatch RenBand wrote:
> Wow. Exciting for an old Dinosaur to actually be able
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 11:08:36 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>Yes, ??= is the trigraph for #. Talk about hash!
>
>Trigraphs go away in C++17.
>
Strongly opposed by IBM.
Replaced in string literals. But according to what CCSID? I'm trying not to
envision the anguish of the compiler writer
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 11:08:36 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>Yes, ??= is the trigraph for #. Talk about hash!
>
>Trigraphs go away in C++17.
>
Then what happens? ISO Latin only? ??=pragma codepage ...? Other (specify)?
-- gil
: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
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
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: ??<
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 06:52:58 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>I got into the habit of <> for not equal in Rexx for that reason. Looking at
>Cowlishaw now I see that there is no strict variant of <>.
>
Indeed. Sometimes, contemptuously, I've used ( 1 - ( X == Y ) ). ( I hadn't
yet
learned "\==".)
sly)
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of David Crayford
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 8:54 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
Yes, of course \ thanks for the correct
Yes, of course \ thanks for the correction. Lua uses ~ which is also a
code page issue. But it also has a "not" keyword which I like. C++ also
has "not" but it's not commonly used.
On 8/08/2018 9:52 PM, Charles Mills wrote:
I got into the habit of <> for not equal in Rexx for that reason.
Samuel Johnson was a misogynist.
Asfor ISPF, the solution, IMHO, for IBM to open source the WSA and for someone
to port it to, e.g., Linux. Getting ISPF to handle UTF-8 in the session would
be gravy.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
rayford
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 6:43 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
For REXX I have used the / operator for years now which is portable. The
logical not character has not aged well.
On 8/08/2018 9:36 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> Yea
.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of David
Crayford
Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 10:19 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
On 8/08/2018 4
Crayford
Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 10:19 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
On 8/08/2018 4:15 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> What's the history of IBM-1047? Why does it seem to be controversial?
> Does it have the same set of printable glyphs as I
On 7 August 2018 at 16:15, Paul Gilmartin
<000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> What's the history of IBM-1047?
It was IBM's answer to the SHARE ASCII/EBCDIC Character Set [ÆCS] Task
Force report "ASCII and EBCDIC Character Set and Code Issues in
Systems Application
Mills
Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 7:34 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
Isn't there a pragma tag codepage?
CharlesSent from a mobile; please excuse the brevity.
Original message From: David Crayford
Date: 8/7/18 7:19 PM (GMT-08:0
Isn't there a pragma tag codepage?
CharlesSent from a mobile; please excuse the brevity.
Original message From: David Crayford
Date: 8/7/18 7:19 PM (GMT-08:00) To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re:
EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
On 8/08/2018 4:15 AM, Paul
On 8/08/2018 4:15 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
What's the history of IBM-1047? Why does it seem to be controversial?
Does it have the same set of printable glyphs as IBM-037 or IBM-500?
What need impelled it?
Good question! Do you know the answer? And don't get me started on the
Can't wait till Friday. For years I've used the analogy of a dog walking on its
hind legs. Never knew the origin. When I saw this reference to Samuel Johnson,
I got a hunch to look it up. Voila! Thanks!
.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler
SHARE
24 matches
Mail list logo
