Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 01:02:22 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 79 Message-ID: References: <85ca46a5-03d8-41ad-ab7e-8e5c3b781e48@googlegroups.com> <88c99e6b-9fb4-45fb-a724-eb03a673ceec@googlegroups.com> <53547407$0$25056$e4fe514c@dreader37.news.xs4all.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:29924 On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 06:33:19 -0400, Alex McDonald wrote: > on 27/04/2014 06:43:29, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 02:16:58 -0400, Alex McDonald >> wrote: >>> on 22/04/2014 17:23:25, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: >>>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:19:19 -0400, Alex McDonald >>>> wrote: >>>>> on 22/04/2014 00:29:57, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 21:26:48 -0400, Alex McDonald >>>>>>> on 21/04/2014 17:25:35, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: >>>>>>>> Bob Bemer and Hugh McGregor Ross created ASCII and EBCDIC. They >>>>>>>> defined a character of exactly 8-bits. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ASCII is, by definition, a 7 bit code. Bemer suggested an 8 bit >>>>>>> character in 1959, but it was not adopted for ASCII. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I accept that the non-extended ASCII characters only need 7-bits >>>>>> for their representation. But, I don't accept that ASCII is only >>>>>> 7-bits and not 8-bits. >>>>>> >>>>>> My recollection is that ANSI X3.4-1986 defined *both* ASCII and >>>>>> extended ASCII. Of course, the last time I read that standard >>>>>> was over two decades ago ... So, AIR, extended ASCII are 8-bit >>>>>> characters with the high bit set. AIR, the extended ASCII >>>>>> character set was intended for platform specific, graphics, >>>>>> and math symbols. >>>>> >>>>> ISO/IEC 8859, an 8 bit extended ASCII was ratified in 1998. US-ASCII >>>>> or >>>>> ANSI X3.4-1986 was specifically 7 bits, and there is no mention of 8 >>>>> bit encodings. >>>> >>>> Please cite. I found mention in two academic sources which say that >>>> the ASCII standard defines extended ASCII. >>> >>> http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2006/06388-review-incits4.pdf >> >> Thank you for confirming what I stated. >> >> If you had read that, or even remotely skimmed it, >> I *seriously* doubt you would've posted that link >> in support of your argument. > > Seriously? Yes, SERIOUSLY. I found it in there seven times just from skimming it. Start by reading page six. There is an entire paragraph on it there. Re-read page six numerous times until it begins to sink in as to what it means. If you're still not clear, then the extended appendices has a more thorough paragraph in the additional appendix, in the 'E' section. > As Rickman says elesewhere, I really hate to even discuss > things with you because you seem to pull stuff out of your butt. Apparently, this is a failure to comprehend on your part. > ANSI X3.4-1986 was specifically 7 bits. The document referred to shows > that quite clearly. There is one reference to 8 bit codes but it is about > *different set of related standards* ("Appendix E Related Standards"). Yes, but the PDF you posted defines that. It defines where and how the 7-bit ASCII sequence are extended. It defines both control sequences in the specification, and the option of extended 8-bit ASCII. It also provides the name of the standard where the 8-bit extended ASCII is fully defined: ANSI X3.41-1974. So, yes, totally and completely seriously, ASCII supports extended ASCII which are 8-bits, i.e., ASCII is not *only* 7-bits. It also confirms my recollection that ASCII standard defines extended ASCII. (I knew that. That's where I learned about it.) Unfortunately, my recollection was that this was all one specification, not two, but that doesn't matter. "It's in there." Rod Pemberton