On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:07:06 -0600, Joel C. Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>.. >I notice your table doesn't mention the "¬" encoding differences between >IBM-1140 and IBM-1047, but perhaps that character wasn't relevant in the >context of that discussion. >... Once again, the character seen in your post depends on the codepage used to display it. I see a "logical not" symbol, and assume that is the character you are refering to. I found lots of references to the IBM-1140 codepage on web but have not seen its contents, so my following comment may be way off base. I think the problem Steve was mentioning was when a character has different codepoint in different codepages. Does IBM-1140 havea "not" as something ther than x'5F'? Most of the codepages I've looked at (which admitted is not many) either have the "not" symbol as x'5F' or don't have it at all. Most codepages I've used lately have the "caret" for x'5F' and don't have a "not" symbol at all. I've taken to interpretting "caret" as "not". The only places I've seen the "not" sysmbol used are PL/I and REXX (although I suspect there are many others, too). I haven't had easy access to PL/I since 1988 so I'm absolutely out of date. As far as REXX is concerned there are several alternatives to "not" - slash-equal and backslash-equal instead of not-equal. In fact, REGINA uses backslash-equal and caret-equal ... assuming I'm using the right codepage to look at the REGINA doc. :-) Pat O'Keefe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
