Category talk:OoRexx: Difference between revisions

<br>

-----

<br>There're different REXX interpreters, and most likely, for one reason (the main reason?) at least, is that the (at one time) only REXX interpreter wasn't available for most platforms, and there was an apparent need (or desire) to have a REXX interpreter on DOS. I believe that's why the first non-IBM version (PC/REXX?) was written (to make REXX available for the PC -- but it was bundled with KEDIT and that made the reasons a little murkey in retrospect, part of KEDIT's flexability and useability was using REXX as it's macro language). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 19:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

I could say, ''"It is possible to write Classic REXX code that won't run unchanged on Fortran"''. Also, ''"it is possible to write Classic REXX code that will run unchanged on Fortran"''. But I was only contesting the statement that ''Since ooRexx is fully upward compatible with REXX, every REXX program shown here can also run, unchanged, using ooRexx''. That italized statement isn't true. I asked to have that statement removed or corrected (and it was corrected). I also didn't suggest any sort of wording to be used for the manner of correction. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 19:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, it was suggested that some classic REXX programs be changed to run under ooRexx. Could sauce for the gander be sauce for the goose? That is, could ooRexx programs be changed to run under classic REXX? [I'm not suggesting that this be done, I'm asking the more-or-less rhetorical question.] I'm not an ooRexx expert (I can spell it easily enough), but do simple tasks require the use of object-only features? I would imagine some tasks could use those features to make the code more concise or easier. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 19:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)