Ref: Your note of Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:55:55 -0700
Constants with type CA are currently translated from EBCDIC
codepage 037 to the 7-bit displayable ASCII codes hex 20 through
7E, not to code page 819. Anything which does not translate to a
valid ASCII character in that range is left untranslated
info uga-info
On 1/14/2014 9:17 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On 2014-01-14 18:50, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
I thought, by experiment, that defining my own very distinctive
TRANSLATE table, that it appeared to affect C'...' constants,
but not CA'...' constants. And that agrees with what I read in
Mr. Gilmore,
If you have any copies left, please send me one, thanks
GREGORY GRAY
IRS, Information Technology Specialist
OS:CTO:AD:IM:CA:C
NCFB, A9-331, TOD 0630-1500
Office - Mon, Tues, Wed - 240-613-1660
Telework - Thur, Fri - 240-482-7349
Email - gregory.g...@irs.gov
-Original Messa
I am selling my copy or maybe for a trade. It is in great shape.
I have changed the direction I am going with my skill set and passing on
the material to someone who can use it.
James
On Jan 15, 2014 5:22 AM, "Gray Gregory" wrote:
> Mr. Gilmore,
>
> If you have any copies left, please send me on
Greg,
There is a first edition available on ebay for $40.
Tony Thigpen
-Original Message -
From: Gray Gregory
Sent: 01/15/2014 06:22 AM
Mr. Gilmore,
If you have any copies left, please send me one, thanks
GREGORY GRAY
IRS, Information Technology Specialist
OS:CTO:AD:IM:CA:C
N
Looks like my last email was rejected. Apparently the list dont like
attachments. Anyways it is a second edition. White cover. I do have a pic
if someone would like to see it.
J
On Jan 15, 2014 6:30 AM, "Tony Thigpen" wrote:
> James (Tim?)
>
> Do you have the first edition or second edition?
>
>
On 2014-01-15, at 01:43, Jonathan Scott wrote:
>
> Constants with type CA are currently translated from EBCDIC
> codepage 037 to the 7-bit displayable ASCII codes hex 20 through
> 7E, not to code page 819. Anything which does not translate to a
> valid ASCII character in that range is left untrans
Ref: Your note of Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:00:56 -0700
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> On 2014-01-15, at 01:43, Jonathan Scott wrote:
> >
> > Constants with type CA are currently translated from EBCDIC
> > codepage 037 to the 7-bit displayable ASCII codes hex 20 through
> > 7E, not to code page 819. Anything
On 2014-01-15, at 01:43, Jonathan Scott wrote:
>
> The ASMALTAS table used for TRANSLATE(AS) converts code page 037
> to code page 819 (ISO 8859-1), using a full 256-byte mapping.
>
And with a private translate table from IBM1047 to IBM037, I get
such as:
000AD 68 LB
Tim:
How much you asking for it or trade for ?
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
from my IPAD
> On Jan 15, 2014, at 7:13 AM, Tim Lost wrote:
>
> I am selling my copy or maybe for a trade. It is in great shape.
> I have changed the direction I am going with my skill set and passing on
> the ma
Well considering what it sales for and how much typical college books sell
for I think $90 is not to much. Considering what it sales for on amazon or
ebay.
For trade, I am lookijg for some good training material on C programming
especially for the mainframe.
James
On Jan 15, 2014 1:54 PM, "Scott
I would suggest that your look into:
"Learn C and Save Your Job: C for COBOL Programmers" by Kenneth Pugh
Paperback: 360 pages
Publisher: *A Wiley-QED Publication; 1 edition (June 1, 1993)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0471588075
ISBN-13: 978-0471588078
Available from Amazon cheap.
Tony Thigpen
Thank you, I have heard of that book I believe. As I have no programming
experience would you say that would still be a good book?
On Jan 15, 2014 3:54 PM, "Tony Thigpen" wrote:
> I would suggest that your look into:
>
> "Learn C and Save Your Job: C for COBOL Programmers" by Kenneth Pugh
> Paper
No. It's for those with COBOL experience. I just assumed that since you
were on this list, that COBOL would be part of your knowledge base.
(Most Mainframe assembler programmers did time as a COBOL programmer.)
Tony Thigpen
-Original Message -
From: Tim Lost
Sent: 01/15/2014 05:08 PM
Well at one time I was learning assembly from an individual at my previous
shop. I am taking a gamble that future z/os admins will start doing more
open systems work with the invention of the new z/BX boxes and unified
resource manager. With that in mind code portability could become useful
which C
On 1/15/2014 2:17 PM, Tony Thigpen wrote:
(Most Mainframe assembler programmers did time as a COBOL programmer.)
Really? My other "old school" mainframe languages are FORTRAN and PL/I.
No COBOL.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
Well, I did say "most". :-)
Tony Thigpen
-Original Message -
From: Ed Jaffe
Sent: 01/15/2014 05:28 PM
On 1/15/2014 2:17 PM, Tony Thigpen wrote:
(Most Mainframe assembler programmers did time as a COBOL programmer.)
Really? My other "old school" mainframe languages are FORTRAN and P
On 2014-01-15 17:17, Tony Thigpen wrote:
(Most Mainframe assembler programmers did time as a COBOL programmer.)
Interesting assertion. The majority of systems programmers I know did
not come from an applications programming background. Personally, I've
only written one COBOL program since unive
Are you saying that all assembler programmers (including those on the
Assembler-List) are only for Systems Programmers? I am sure there are a
lot of assembler application programmers here also.
Tony Thigpen
-Original Message -
From: Gord Tomlin
Sent: 01/15/2014 05:53 PM
On 2014-01-15
I started as an Assembler application programmer 37 years ago. No COBOL at
all, ever.
Mike Shaw
MVS/QuickRef Support
Chicago-Soft, Ltd
On Jan 15, 2014 6:04 PM, "Tony Thigpen" wrote:
> Are you saying that all assembler programmers (including those on the
> Assembler-List) are only for Systems Pro
On 2014-01-15 18:03, Tony Thigpen wrote:
Are you saying that all assembler programmers (including those on the
Assembler-List) are only for Systems Programmers?
Nope.
I am sure there are a
lot of assembler application programmers here also.
Maybe, but the majority of the conversations here ap
On 1/15/2014 3:03 PM, Tony Thigpen wrote:
Are you saying that all assembler programmers (including those on the
Assembler-List) are only for Systems Programmers? I am sure there are a
lot of assembler application programmers here also.
I came through applications programming ... not systems pro
Indeed, I am one such. Though I did once have systems programming
responsibilities long ago in a galaxy far, far away (VM/VSE/SP), most of my
professional life (before and after the systems programming stint) has been
spent as an application programmer of one sort or another, a significant part
I started as an EAM operator in 61, the scientific user/programmer in
Fortran and then taught self ASM-F. then taught self Cobol followed by
PL/I RPG Was about to go to MVT internals to be trained to be sysprog
when I went into full time ASM. Along the way did VTAM and wrote a
testing "app"
Operations into systems programming
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
from my IPAD
> On Jan 15, 2014, at 5:53 PM, Gord Tomlin
> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-01-15 17:17, Tony Thigpen wrote:
>> (Most Mainframe assembler programmers did time as a COBOL programmer.)
>
> Interesting assertion. The majorit
I came via applications development also. Cobol, Natural, PL/I, etc.
But, I found Cobol remarkably easy to learn on internship because I had just
finished a semester of 370 assembler.
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER-
> l...@listserv.uga.edu] On
Same here, Computer Ops, Production control and then into System Admin. I
say admin because I don't actually code anything. Just JCL, SMP/e and some
rexx. Maybe one day I can count myself among the few and chosen true
Sysprogs :-p
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Scott Ford wrote:
> Operations
*sigh*
All this talk about CP 037 and 1047. They're obsolete.
The proper CPs to use today are 1140 and 924. Off the top of my head,
quite a few contributors to this can tell us why; my good friend Herr
Trübner is one who comes to mind immediately, although he might say that CP
1141 should be u
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Tony Thigpen wrote:
> (Most Mainframe assembler programmers did time as a COBOL programmer.)
(*Many *mainframe *applications *assembler programmers did time as a COBOL
programmer.)
There, I fixed it for you.
Kirk,
You road to systems sounds like mine
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
from my IPAD
> On Jan 15, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Kirk Talman wrote:
>
> I started as an EAM operator in 61, the scientific user/programmer in
> Fortran and then taught self ASM-F. then taught self Cobol followed by
> PL/
On 2014-01-15 17:25, Ray Mullins wrote:
> *sigh*
>
> All this talk about CP 037 and 1047. They're obsolete.
>
> The proper CPs to use today are 1140 and 924. Off the top of my head,
> quite a few contributors to this can tell us why; my good friend Herr
> Trübner is one who comes to mind immediat
On 15 January 2014 19:25, Ray Mullins wrote:
> *sigh*
>
> All this talk about CP 037 and 1047. They're obsolete.
>
> The proper CPs to use today are 1140 and 924
Well, maybe. For one thing, as you say, there are other EBCDIC code pages
that encode exactly the same characters (what IBM calls CS 6
32 matches
Mail list logo
