Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mtxinu!shore
From: shore@mtxinu.COM (Melinda Shore)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: need EBCDIC to ASCII function
Message-ID: <1022@mtxinu.UUCP>
Date: 15 Oct 89 18:12:07 GMT
References: <1060@einstein.misemi> <1989Oct4.203729.11700@utzoo.uucp> <10946@riks.csl.sony.co.jp>
Reply-To: shore@mtxinu.com (Melinda Shore)
Organization: mt Xinu, Berkeley
Lines: 25

In article <10946@riks.csl.sony.co.jp> diamond@csl.sony.co.jp (Norman
Diamond) writes:

>  In fact EBCDIC is just as well-defined as ASCII.  Only some IBM print
>  trains did not use EBCDIC.  "dd" provides an alternative table so that
>  certain characters will print properly on those printers, but that
>  target code is not EBCDIC.  Also IBM terminals usually did not use
>  EBCDIC, so the operating system had to translate to and from the
>  device codes.

Not entirely true.  To the extent that EBCDIC is defined it is multiply
defined;  my handy-dandy 370 architecture reference card from IBM has
two EBCDIC translation charts.  Also, the protocol converters used to
allow the use of ASCII RS-232 terminals with IBM-ish mainframes typically
support several character translation tables, selectable by the user or
system programmer (ours were selected by typing ^a then some single-
digit integer from the user keyboard - imagine the problems THAT caused).

Also, I wouldn't say that IBM terminals "usually" did not use EBCDIC.
Perhaps you mean that most academic sites choose to use ASCII terminals
through protocol converters?  That's certainly not the way of the rest
of the world.
-- 
Melinda Shore                                     shore@mtxinu.com
Mt Xinu                                  ..!uunet!mtxinu.com!shore