Anonymous user
Talk:Idiomatically determine all the characters that can be used for symbols: Difference between revisions
Talk:Idiomatically determine all the characters that can be used for symbols (view source)
Revision as of 07:49, 18 February 2018
, 6 years ago→Arbitration?: corrected an HTML tag (was misspelling).
m (→Arbitration?: left-handed compliment comment.) |
m (→Arbitration?: corrected an HTML tag (was misspelling).) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 239:
<br>8. Rexx programs using features added by ooRexx are entered in the ooRexx section possibly stating the minimum version to be used.
:::: I go further than that. ooRexx entries are to be entered in the ooRexx section, no matter what features are used (or not used). &
<br>9. Two implementations of a language are compatible if each possible program yields the same result when run on both.
Line 291:
::::::: Well, that sounds like I wasn't constructive most of the time. I try to be constructive and informative for all my many Classic REXX examples that I have entered. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 17:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::: You '''were''' constructive on several occasions (the proleptic calendar and your justified flagging my x+=8 lapse come to mind.)<br>The sad thing is the tons of vague arguments that you are using in this "discussion" that goes really out of bounds.<br>similarly sad is the number of voters we attract.<br>I shall stop arguing now and post programs that are written in that subset of Rexx that is accepted by each and every Rexx I know in the REXX language section. I will never flag your entries when they use $#@, Upper x, or x"; since I was unable to convince you that we were better off without them (the language features, not your programs.).
PS I don't know what a left-handed compliment is! --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 18:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::::: (GIYF) A backhanded compliment, also known as a left handed compliment or asteism, is an insult that is disguised as a compliment. One common form is: You know, for being such a fat person, you don't sweat much!! (What every woman wants to hear, I'm sure.) In some other words: there were times when you were constructive, but not so much the other times. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::: When I entered asteism in Google, it said "did you mean asterism". That led to my false comment entered earlier. Sorry. Looking it up in my huge Langenscheidt helped me. Still learning something new every other day from and because of you.<br>My English will never be perfect, but I'm trying to improve. My REXX is quite good though, in spite of so many specs to look into :-)--[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 06:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
== entering ooRexx entries in wrong language section ==
Line 319 ⟶ 326:
[[User:Rvjansen|rvjansen]] ([[User talk:Rvjansen|talk]]) 17:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
President, Rexx Language Association.
-----
I'm sorry if you think that I'm crusading against ooRexx, I am not. I have never said anything bad on Rosetta Code or in newsgroups against ooRexx (I don't consider differences a bad thing). (Also, I don't know what you refer to when you mentioned my personal resentment about the ooRexx team not being forthcoming). It seems there are a lot of misfounded rumors going around, and this is no place for such things, even if mentioned in passing. But once spoken here, it stays here forever. The main issue here (if you had read the long discussions) is the separation of ooRexx output (here on Rosetta Code) from the Classic REXX entries. You may have noticed that ooRexx and NetRexx have their own language sections separate from (Classic) REXX (on Rosetta Code). One intent (but not the only one) is to keep ooRexx solutions and it's syntax, features, etc, in a language section ('''ooRexx''') that focuses on ooRexx (and not the differences from Classic REXX, which isn't the intent on Rosetta Code). The same issue with NetRexx, but NetRexx never had this problem. Another big point is the definition of what Classic REXX is, which, when not clearly (or not in agreement) defined, is causing cross-posting and begat this long thread. As I understand it, the purpose of Rosetta Code is to show off various languages (and dialects, etc), not to show the differences between languages in a detailed way, but what each language can do (and how it can be programmed to accomplish any of the Rosetta Code's many tasks). It is to this end that I've entered (I think) over 800 different versions of REXX programs in the (Classic) '''REXX''' language section (representing over 600 Rosetta Code tasks (problems, if you will). I agree that this discussion shouldn't have taken place here on Rosetta Code, but once Pandora's Box was opened in a public forum, I had to answer a question posed directly to me by name (and many others), and here we are, arguing about the definition(s) (or lack of it/them) here, and what language sections on Rosetta Code are for. It appears that when I answer a point, several more queries are raised, and I always try to answer direct questions posed to me, even if takes a few words. I don't believe that REXX is an incoherent mess, but the term '''Classic REXX''' does need a good definition (as well as '''a Classic REXX interpreter''') that can be agreed to by all (at least on Rosetta Code); this would be a moot point if ooRexx entries (and/or output) would've been placed in the '''ooRexx''' Rosetta Code language section. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
But, I disagree about ''why'' Mark (Hessling) did. I hoped he didn't add a special flag just to keep me happy. It was a response to a Regina "bug" (that I reported), or rather, a feature/option of Regina that isn't part of any Classic REXX standard (this is the use of the '''--''' as a REXX comment indicator); I had expressed a possible need for such a switch so that Regina could be run as ANSI compliant REXX. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
== This page is now displaying properly again! ==
I traced this problem back to when the Tcl entry was added on 26 March 2014, probably because of the size of the output (virtually the whole unicode character table).
With apologies to the author of this entry (Dkf), I've restricted the output to the first 256 characters and, thankfully, the problem now seems to be fixed. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 16:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
| |||