9 Feb
2017
9 Feb
'17
12:26 p.m.
Michael Kjörling <michael(a)kjorling.se> writes:
That wouldn't have anything to do with how ^@ is
a somewhat common
representation of 000, would it? (Yes, using octal on purpose.) I've
always kind of wondered where that notation came from. That ^A
through ^Z were representations of 001 through 032 makes more sense.
Look at two slices of the ASCII table:
0 ^@ 64 @
1 ^A 65 A
2 ^B 66 B
3 ^C 67 C
4 ^D 68 D
5 ^E 69 E
6 ^F 70 F
7 ^G 71 G
8 ^H 72 H
9 ^I 73 I
10 ^J 74 J
11 ^K 75 K
12 ^L 76 L
13 ^M 77 M
14 ^N 78 N
15 ^O 79 O
16 ^P 80 P
17 ^Q 81 Q
18 ^R 82 R
19 ^S 83 S
20 ^T 84 T
21 ^U 85 U
22 ^V 86 V
23 ^W 87 W
24 ^X 88 X
25 ^Y 89 Y
26 ^Z 90 Z
27 ^[ 91 [
28 ^\ 92 \
29 ^] 93 ]
30 ^^ 94 ^
31 ^_ 95 _