Re: Accessing data type 'G' in RPG ???

[David Gibbs <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/27/2009 11:27 AM, James H. H. Lampert wrote:
> I did *NOT* say that DBCS *IS* 16-bit Unicode. I said that this
> particular *instance* of DBCS fields is *probably* 16-bit Unicode, which
> *IS* one of the possibilities (and *at least two* of the valid code
> pages) for type-G DBCS fields, and probably the MOST COMMON one for new
> work.

As far as I know ... 16bit Unicode is *NOT* a DBCS character set.

Yes, it does take two bytes to represent a single character in 16bit Unicode ... but DBCS has specific meaning on the i.

> And as to the so-called controversy, BOTH usages of "DBCS" are correct,
> as BOTH usages of the term refer to characters being encoded at 16 bits
> each. Limiting it to one usage or the other is NEVER correct.

Context is key here ... "DBCS" on the i is (again, as far as I know) generally referring to a way of encoding Asian characters in an EBCDIC environment.

Although I haven't done an exhaustive investigation, I think you will find that the IBM i manuals reference the term DBCS in this way.

FWIW: On the i, DBCS is supported in the 5250 data stream but Unicode is not.  At least as of V5R4 (http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r4/topic/nls/rbagsucsdspandpnlgrpcon.htm).

david