Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
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)
Charles
C++17 removes support for Trigraphs in the language... but, I'm sure
many compilers will
continue to support them as an extension.
- Dave R. -
--
riv...@dignus.comWork: (919) 676-0847
Get your mainframe programming tools at http://www.dignus.com
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
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 Bitsavers, but though there are references
>to it I don't see it there, or indeed anywhere else. Well I have an
>original paper copy, so time to get scanning...
>
Thanks. Will it go to Bitsavers? They do an incredible job of some sort
of 2-layer PDFs which are simultaneously images (even with fingerprints)
and searchable text. I've found:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBCDIC_037
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBCDIC_037-2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBCDIC_1047
Differences in a handful of code points; not enough to bring world
peace or solve climate change.
On Linux, the script below compares the output of "dd conv={ebcdic|ibm}"
to pages 037, 500, and 1047. The best match seems to be "conv-ibm"
to IBM-1047.
I don't believe that the "dd" utility per se motivated a serious requirement,
but does "dd conv=ibm" reflect otherwise prevalent practice?
(And we still have the LF-NL irritant.)
# #
#! /bin/sh -x
S=$( awk 'BEGIN {
for ( I=32; I<128; I++ ) printf( "%c", I ) }'; )
around() {
echo; echo; echo EBCDIC "$1"
printf %s "$S" | dd conv=ebcdic |
iconv -f "$1" -t ISO8859-1
echo; echo IBM"$1"
printf '%s\n' "$S"
printf %s "$S" | dd conv=ibm|
iconv -f "$1" -t ISO8859-1
}
around CSIBM037
around CSIBM500
around IBM-1047
echo
exit
# #
Thanks again,
gil
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
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. >> > Is it available? I thought I had seen it on Bitsavers, but though there are references to it I don't see it there, or indeed anywhere else. Well I have an original paper copy, so time to get scanning... Tony H. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
On 9/08/2018 2:08 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
Yes, ??= is the trigraph for #. Talk about hash!
Trigraphs go away in C++17.
Michael Wong from IBM has already stated that IBM will still support
trigraphs in C++ as an extension. C hasn't deprecated them.
But seeing as #pragma filetag() is already an extension I see no reason
why anybody would use them. I have no idea why
the health checker header files in SYS1.SIEAHDR.H(HZS*) chose to use
them. It's an act of madness!
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
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/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.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
Just say yes to the hex editor. Also, (maybe no need to mention) please show me the raw data before you import it to Excel, or Word or Notepad or cut and paste it somewhere. Let me see the original bits. Please. On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 4:21 PM, Charles Mills wrote: > 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) > > 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 < > johnmattson...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > Wow. Exciting for an old Dinosaur to actually be able to contribute > > something. > > > > The HxD Hex Editor https://mh-nexus.de/en/hxd/ (or many other places). > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
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) 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 to contribute > something. > > The HxD Hex Editor https://mh-nexus.de/en/hxd/ (or many other places). -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
I dunno. I *think* the alternatives and digraphs like not and <% are adequate for any code page. I could easily be wrong. They behave better in my impression because I think the compiler parses them just like any other operator or token, whereas the trigraphs behave like "uber-macros" 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 (was: Json table characters) 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)? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
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 to contribute > something. > > The HxD Hex Editor https://mh-nexus.de/en/hxd/ (or many other places). > Or perhaps another PC based Hex editor can be SO very useful when dealing > with finding out just what the heck is actually in ASCII, or EBCDIC, or any > other. It has helped resolve a lot of problems for me including figuring > out how to incorporate special characters in passwords when using foreign > language keyboards. Hint: if you use special chars in your passwords they > will NOT translate to the same chars, or keyboard locations if you try to > use them on a computer overseas, so choose them carefully. You may lose > your smartphone/notebook and be forced to use whatever you can find. > > -Just waiting here to hit the EPO switch for the mainframe. ; ^ ) And then > a long vacation in Italy. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
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 confronting something as basic as: printf( "??( ??/??/ ??)??/n" ); The ISPF Edit Macro Ref. states that metacharacters in regular expressions are interpreted in the code page of the logged-in terminal. It lists a couple dozen that are supported. A challenge to the author of purportedly portable macros. What if batch; no attached terminal? A cursory experiment indicates compatible with 1047. Maybe. Not documented. To make Edit macros portable, they'd need to provide a PRAGMA CCSID. I hate EBCDIC! -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
Yes, ??= is the trigraph for #. Talk about hash!
Trigraphs go away in C++17.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
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/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.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
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/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 lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
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 "\==".) On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 14:15:50 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: > >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. > I wish something similar to WSA existed as a z-based X11 client: write once, access almost anywhere. NFS has solved file sharing requirements nicely for me. On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 23:38:07 -0400, Tony Harminc wrote: > >> Does it have the same set of printable glyphs as IBM-037 or IBM-500? > >Yes, exactly. Those CPs, and quite a few more, such as 285, 273, etc. >encode what IBM calls Character Set (CS) 697. This CS (or Character >Repertoire in ISO terminology) is often called Latin-1, though Latin-1 >is also used to mean the ASCII-based encoding of CS 697, which is >IBM's CP 819. > >> What need impelled it? > >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. > Is it available? Just curious. It's hard for me to imagine that the problem of a surfeit of code pages could be mitigated by adding one more. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
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)
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 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.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
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. Looking at Cowlishaw now I see that there is no strict variant of <>. You mean \ right? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
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 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 4:15 PM To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu Subject: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters) On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:48:30 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >>Don't we celebrate diversity. > >In cusine, il va sans dire. In character sets, not so much. With the advent of >Unicode and UTF-8, I wish those other code pages would go away. Or at least >that every OS tagged character files with the code page and did the >translations. > And that Classic data sets could be so tagged. Also JES spool files. There is a CCSID keyword on DD statements, but severely restricted. ISPF Edit has a surprising (cf. Samuel Johnson's dog) facility for recognizing tags and dealing with many code pages, even UTF-8, *provided* their characters are supported by the terminal's character set. I wish that TSO/ISPF supported UTF-8 terminal emulators. If there were UTF-8 terminal emulators. 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? -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
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 <>. You mean \ right? Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of David Crayford 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: > Yeah, and on my PC there is a similar issue with ¬ (Logical Not); is it AA or > AC? That's a major issue if you/re coding PL/I or REXX. > > -- > 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 4:15 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 > line-feed/newline x'15' fiasco! > > I use IBM-1047 for the projects I work on because I work in z/OS UNIX > but other teams use IBM-037 because that was the default in their > terminal emulators many years ago. > We've got C/C++ code with different square brackets depending on the > project which is incredibly annoying if the source is in a PDS so it > can't be tagged. IDE's like RD/z (or > whatever it's called now) do a good job solving code page hell. > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
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: Yeah, and on my PC there is a similar issue with ¬ (Logical Not); is it AA or AC? That's a major issue if you/re coding PL/I or REXX. -- 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 4:15 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 line-feed/newline x'15' fiasco! I use IBM-1047 for the projects I work on because I work in z/OS UNIX but other teams use IBM-037 because that was the default in their terminal emulators many years ago. We've got C/C++ code with different square brackets depending on the project which is incredibly annoying if the source is in a PDS so it can't be tagged. IDE's like RD/z (or whatever it's called now) do a good job solving code page hell. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
Yeah, and on my PC there is a similar issue with ¬ (Logical Not); is it AA or AC? That's a major issue if you/re coding PL/I or REXX. -- 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 4:15 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 line-feed/newline x'15' fiasco! I use IBM-1047 for the projects I work on because I work in z/OS UNIX but other teams use IBM-037 because that was the default in their terminal emulators many years ago. We've got C/C++ code with different square brackets depending on the project which is incredibly annoying if the source is in a PDS so it can't be tagged. IDE's like RD/z (or whatever it's called now) do a good job solving code page hell. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
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 Architecture". Sometimes considered to be IBM's riposte to the NIH (that's Not Invented Here - not the [US] National Institutes of Health) "Codepage 37 version 2" proposed in that paper. > Why does it seem to be controversial? I don't know - is it? > Does it have the same set of printable glyphs as IBM-037 or IBM-500? Yes, exactly. Those CPs, and quite a few more, such as 285, 273, etc. encode what IBM calls Character Set (CS) 697. This CS (or Character Repertoire in ISO terminology) is often called Latin-1, though Latin-1 is also used to mean the ASCII-based encoding of CS 697, which is IBM's CP 819. > What need impelled it? 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. Tony H. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
In GSKCMS from a PDS:
#if defined(__COMPILER_VER__)
#pragma filetag("IBM-1047")
#pragma nomargins nosequence
#endif
Ditto GSKSSL and GSKTYPES.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Charles 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-08:00) 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 IBM-037 or IBM-500?
> What need impelled it?
Good question! Do you know the answer? And don't get me started on the
line-feed/newline x'15' fiasco!
I use IBM-1047 for the projects I work on because I work in z/OS UNIX
but other teams use IBM-037 because that was the default in their
terminal emulators many years ago.
We've got C/C++ code with different square brackets depending on the
project which is incredibly annoying if the source is in a PDS so it
can't be tagged. IDE's like RD/z (or
whatever it's called now) do a good job solving code page hell.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
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-08:00) 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 IBM-037 or IBM-500? > What need impelled it? Good question! Do you know the answer? And don't get me started on the line-feed/newline x'15' fiasco! I use IBM-1047 for the projects I work on because I work in z/OS UNIX but other teams use IBM-037 because that was the default in their terminal emulators many years ago. We've got C/C++ code with different square brackets depending on the project which is incredibly annoying if the source is in a PDS so it can't be tagged. IDE's like RD/z (or whatever it's called now) do a good job solving code page hell. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
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 IBM-037 or IBM-500? What need impelled it? Good question! Do you know the answer? And don't get me started on the line-feed/newline x'15' fiasco! I use IBM-1047 for the projects I work on because I work in z/OS UNIX but other teams use IBM-037 because that was the default in their terminal emulators many years ago. We've got C/C++ code with different square brackets depending on the project which is incredibly annoying if the source is in a PDS so it can't be tagged. IDE's like RD/z (or whatever it's called now) do a good job solving code page hell. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: EBCDIC (was: Json table characters)
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 MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW robin...@sce.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2018 1:16 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):EBCDIC (was: Json table characters) On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:48:30 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >>Don't we celebrate diversity. > >In cusine, il va sans dire. In character sets, not so much. With the advent of >Unicode and UTF-8, I wish those other code pages would go away. Or at least >that every OS tagged character files with the code page and did the >translations. > And that Classic data sets could be so tagged. Also JES spool files. There is a CCSID keyword on DD statements, but severely restricted. ISPF Edit has a surprising (cf. Samuel Johnson's dog) facility for recognizing tags and dealing with many code pages, even UTF-8, *provided* their characters are supported by the terminal's character set. I wish that TSO/ISPF supported UTF-8 terminal emulators. If there were UTF-8 terminal emulators. 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? -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
