special symbol

[Richard D. Williams]

The symbol is a "section sign".  In HTML it is produced by § or §.

Iit is agreed chr("167") is correct.  I am trying to print this symbol 
on a Kyocera printer using HP4 emulation.
The character in my previous e-mails is part of a list of special 
characters available in my mail software.

I have a complete list of special characters for use in web pages.  If 
anyone would like it I could post a link.

When I look at the filepro Character Table the underscored o is,     Dec 
=167  Hex=  A7. 
If I set h=chr("167") and then print var h on a form, I get the 
underscored o.
If 167 is indeed the correct decimal code for the section sign, why do I 
get this underscored o?
Is there something here I am missing?

I don't think mapchan comes into play when printing.  I would like to 
create a print code to produce this symbol.

FYI, Red Hat 8.0, FP 5.0.10 ( I know I need to update the fp)

Thanks again,

Richard D. Williams

Jean-Pierre A. Radley wrote:

>Bob Stockler propounded (on Sat, May 29, 2004 at 03:16:04PM -0400):
>| On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 01:38:15PM -0500, Richard D. Williams wrote:
>| | 
>| | Does anyone know the code to produce this symbol,  §?   
>| 
>| On an SCO ScoTerm Window it's chr("167").
>
>Well, in Richard's email, it's chr("167"), agreed.  And it's still
>char('167") on your machine, as it is on everyone elses's.
>
>But what is displayed "depends(Pat.Pend)" :-)
>
>On the scoterm window on which I'm looking at the message, as user
>'appl', I see an underlined 'o'. There's NO mapchan table in effect.
>
>But on a scoterm for 'jpr', I see the "section sign", which is like two
>overlayed 'S', one a tad above the other. The IBM mapchan is in place.
>
>And on character terminals here, same thing: what I see is a function of
>what mapchanneling is in effect.
>
>If I generate an underscored 'o' on my ibm-mapchan'd screen (using the
>compose sequence 'CTL-_ o -'), then on my non-mapchan'd screen, it looks
>like a double vertical line: º .
>
>So until Richard tells us, we really do not know what he is seeking to
>display (or print, which will lead to a whole kettle of other fish).
>
>
>  
>