Anonymous user
Category talk:OoRexx: Difference between revisions
m
→ooRexx fully compatible with classic REXX: added comments about program being changed. -- ~~~~
m (→ooRexx fully compatible with classic REXX: cleaned up a couple of phrases. -- ~~~~) |
m (→ooRexx fully compatible with classic REXX: added comments about program being changed. -- ~~~~) |
||
Line 31:
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. I didn't intend for my dog to be dragged into this discusion (on ooRexx), I was entering classic REXX programs only. And then the ''24 game'' was thrown in front and center into a roiling controversy. If it weren't for the changes and programming style made to the classic REXX program that I entered, I wouldn't be here in an ooRexx discussion trying to defend statements that I didn't make concerning classic REXX vs. ooRexx. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 19:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
== Plagiarism ==
| |||