From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: lars@nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff)
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 13:26:54 +0100
Subject: [TUHS] // comment in C++
In-Reply-To: <20170209121204.GJ5418@yeono.kjorling.se> ("Michael
 \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Kj\=C3\=B6rling\=22's\?\=
 message of "Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:12:04 +0000")
References: <CAP6exYJ_ifC=9zLTwq99fXt+nFAt2SSoPzdQKZwTHEG0NBcoSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170208224556.GG65698@eureka.lemis.com>
 <04c401d2825d$d0758da0$7160a8e0$@ronnatalie.com>
 <20170209121204.GJ5418@yeono.kjorling.se>
Message-ID: <86inojsg6p.fsf@molnjunk.nocrew.org>

Michael Kjörling <michael at 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 _