home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
- Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!munnari.oz.au!metro!physiol.su.OZ.AU!john
- From: john@physiol.su.OZ.AU (John Mackin)
- Subject: Re: Portability of ASCII across Unixes
- Message-ID: <1992Aug25.024553.5085@physiol.su.OZ.AU>
- Reply-To: John Mackin <john@civil.su.oz.au>
- Organization: Department of Physiology, University of Sydney, Australia
- References: <22412@sybase.sybase.com> <Bt4qL6.JpA@root.co.uk> <22651@sybase.sybase.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 02:45:53 GMT
- Lines: 25
-
- In article <22651@sybase.sybase.com> hsc@sybase.com (Howard Cohen) writes:
-
- > Any *Unix* machine, yes. So name one that doesn't support ASCII. We're not
- > talking in the hypothetical here. I can't think of one, and Sybase supports
- > almost 30 different vendor's platforms. [...]
- > Portability is an important issue to me, and if ASCII really isn't portable
- > across modern unixes, then I want to know.
-
- I would be surprised if there were any _modern_ versions of UNIX that
- aren't ASCII-based. Certainly no one has come up with one in the
- followups yet. In one of the followups, someone pointed out that
- AIX/370 is ASCII and not EBCDIC. However, we should always remember
- history. Round about the Sixth Edition days, there was a port done
- to the 360/370, and that port was indeed EBCDIC-based. See for
- example K&R (first edition), pp. 34 (table) and 40. pcc was
- used for this: see Johnson, _A Tour Through the Portable C Compiler_,
- UPM Seventh Edition Volume 2.
-
- It might not be happening now -- but it certainly has happened
- in the past. And we _know_ what happens to people who don't
- properly appreciate the significance of history...
-
- --
- John Mackin <john@civil.su.oz.au>
- `I'd rather have :rofix than const.' -DMR
-