Wrong for ISO-8859-15, but not wrong for CP437 and CP850. Latin-1 doesn't have the € (Euro); I'd go with Latin-9, although I believe that W3C blessed Latin-1.
IETF has blessed UTF-8 as the way forward. I wasn't asking which encoding was best (IMHO, it's 'C2AC'X, THE UTF-8 transform of 'AC'X), but rather what various current interpreters expect. I believe that NetRexx supports a UTF-8 encoding of the source, but I was concerned with classic and OO flavors. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe 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 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, 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 ¬? > > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
