Old ASCII (was: Re: Stupid CP/M question)

From: Eric Smith <eric_at_brouhaha.com>
Date: Tue Jan 12 17:12:18 1999

Philip.Belben_at_pgen.com wrote:
> If you ever get the chance, have a look at the layout of a PET chicklet
> keyboard. It is quite clever. PETSCII, unlike ASCII, _does_ make
> connections between codes for shifted keys and those for unshifted keys -

You missed my point entirely. My point wasn't that in ASCII that the
shifted and unshifted keys weren't related in a simple binary manner.

My point was that ASCII _has_no_concept_ of keys, or mappings thereof.

To speak of shift-$ with regard to ASCII is a complete non-sequitur. To
speak of it with regard to a PET makes perfect sense, but it's not ASCII.
I've never seen a formal definition of PETSCII, so I can't comment on
whether PETSCII defines the keyboard mapping.

> So although PETSCII is not ASCII, don't knock it. It worked well.

Who was knocking anything? All I was trying to do was to clarify that ASCII
defines no key mappings.

The PET 2001 was the first microcomputer I used. I have fond memories
of it, and I have a 2001, an 8032, and an SP-9000 in my collection.

Eric
Received on Tue Jan 12 1999 - 17:12:18 GMT