Category talk:OoRexx: Difference between revisions

Line 25:

The two main objectives of (classic Rexx) Regina are to "become 100% compliant with the ANSI Standard, and be available on as many platforms as possible". I'm sure that there are other (secondary) reasons as well for the various REXX interpreters. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 19:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

As for my wording (suggested or otherwise): no, I never said, implied, or suggesting that code from any classic REXX ~~interpretor~~ would run on any other classic REXX interpreter. If it would, I wouldn't have so many Regina bugs entered in Source Forge. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 19:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

As for my wording (suggested or otherwise): no, I never said, implied, or suggesting that code from any classic REXX interpreter would run on any other classic REXX interpreter. If it would, I wouldn't have so many Regina bugs entered in Source Forge. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 19:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I should not be accussed of not serving the truth for something that I did NOT say. (This is not true, no?) This is a strawman argument. I resolutely stand by the words that I did NOT say and will defend my right to not say those words that I won't say. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 19:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Line 81:

:: I certainly don't want to be an irritant to you, and I am incredibly busy at the moment, but I could offer to take a bit at a time the classic Rexx samples here and see what it would take to make them run on ooRexx. I could then pass them back to you and if I hadn't broken them for regina etc., then you could choose to post them or not. I quite understand if you are not interested. --[[User:Sahananda|Sahananda]] 12:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

::: If you're going to change them for ooRexx, why not also test them to see if they still work with the three class REXX interpreters that they were intended to work for (and also already tested)? I really don't want to spend that amount of time re-testing other people's code. I'm pretty sure your time is as valuable to you as my time is to me. I'm not sure if you appreciate the amount of time that will be spent in just visiting each of the classic REXX programs, updating (changing) them, added summaries, and testing for (at least) four REXX environments, and that's assuming that you have the aforementioned classic REXX interpreters. Some (ok, ok, a few) of the classic REXX programs were also tested under CMS and/or TSO (by obliging dear friends) [--- if it works on one, it'll most likely work on the other, as it's the same REXX ~~interpretor~~] --- and I certainly don't want to put them through that again (running of non-business work on the company's dime). This avenue of testing is water over the dam ... most of them have retired. I started to go through the REXX examples, trying to removed the extra blanks lines that my earlier REXX examples had at the beginning and end of the REXX programs, and even that was taking a lot of my time. So far, I got through the '''A'''s abd '''B'''s. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 20:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

::: If you're going to change them for ooRexx, why not also test them to see if they still work with the three class REXX interpreters that they were intended to work for (and also already tested)? I really don't want to spend that amount of time re-testing other people's code. I'm pretty sure your time is as valuable to you as my time is to me. I'm not sure if you appreciate the amount of time that will be spent in just visiting each of the classic REXX programs, updating (changing) them, added summaries, and testing for (at least) four REXX environments, and that's assuming that you have the aforementioned classic REXX interpreters. Some (ok, ok, a few) of the classic REXX programs were also tested under CMS and/or TSO (by obliging dear friends) [--- if it works on one, it'll most likely work on the other, as it's the same REXX interpreter] --- and I certainly don't want to put them through that again (running of non-business work on the company's dime). This avenue of testing is water over the dam ... most of them have retired. I started to go through the REXX examples, trying to removed the extra blanks lines that my earlier REXX examples had at the beginning and end of the REXX programs, and even that was taking a lot of my time. So far, I got through the '''A'''s abd '''B'''s. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 20:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

::: One option would be to include a 2nd version, with a comment or note that it was changed to run under ooREXX and only tested under ooRexx. I suppose that just placing that version in the ooREXX language section would be simplier. By the way (and this is no small thing), it was this multiple testing of my classic REXX example programs that led to me finding numerous errors in the Regina and R4 classic REXX interpreters. I never assume that even writing simple code will correctly work on all REXX interpreters until I actually execute them. Ya never can tell when something will rise up and bit ya in the hinder. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 20:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)