Talk:Read a configuration file: Revision history

27 July 2013

• curprev 18:1218:12, 27 July 2013‎ rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger‎ 11,368 bytes +362‎ →‎REXX vs ooRexx: added a note about the REXX program example (and it's fix). -- ~~~~

24 July 2013

• curprev 19:4719:47, 24 July 2013‎ Walterpachl talk contribs‎ 11,006 bytes +645‎ →‎REXX vs ooRexx: a Problem in the REXX solution?
• curprev 18:2218:22, 24 July 2013‎ Walterpachl talk contribs‎ 10,361 bytes +147‎ →‎REXX vs ooRexx: thanks
• curprev 17:3117:31, 24 July 2013‎ rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger‎ 10,214 bytes +1,111‎ →‎REXX vs ooRexx: specified which REXXes failed with a (non-classic) REXX example. -- ~~~~
• curprev 07:1007:10, 24 July 2013‎ Walterpachl talk contribs‎ 9,103 bytes +217‎ →‎REXX vs ooRexx: new section

3 July 2012

• curprev 15:3015:30, 3 July 2012‎ rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger‎ m 8,886 bytes +4‎ →‎current task: added italics to indicate what is what (as per the meaning of a word). -- ~~~~

29 March 2012

• curprev 17:1017:10, 29 March 2012‎ rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger‎ m 8,882 bytes +447‎ →‎"Standard": added ubiquitous comma use. -- ~~~~
• curprev 16:5116:51, 29 March 2012‎ rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger‎ m 8,435 bytes 0‎ →‎current task: corrected typo. -- ~~~~
• curprev 09:0209:02, 29 March 2012‎ rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger‎ m 8,435 bytes +249‎ →‎"Standard": more comments on (people) names. -- ~~~~
• curprev 09:0009:00, 29 March 2012‎ rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger‎ m 8,186 bytes +1,880‎ →‎"Standard": added answer to what's not clear. -- ~~~~
• curprev 08:1908:19, 29 March 2012‎ rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger‎ m 6,306 bytes +269‎ →‎current task: questioning the need for the archaic word: speeling. -- ~~~~

24 April 2011

• curprev 19:1119:11, 24 April 2011‎ rosettacode>Markhobley‎ 6,037 bytes +692‎ Which part of the format is not clear from the example?
• curprev 19:0019:00, 24 April 2011‎ rosettacode>Markhobley‎ 5,345 bytes +421‎ →‎current task
• curprev 18:0718:07, 24 April 2011‎ rosettacode>Paddy3118‎ 4,924 bytes +433‎ →‎"Standard": Work on the description or change the "standard"?
• curprev 17:1817:18, 24 April 2011‎ rosettacode>Dkf‎ 4,491 bytes +268‎ →‎"Standard": More nitpicking
• curprev 17:1417:14, 24 April 2011‎ rosettacode>Dkf‎ 4,223 bytes +447‎ →‎"Standard": Still not nailed…

28 February 2011

• curprev 00:1500:15, 28 February 2011‎ rosettacode>Markhobley‎ 3,776 bytes +527‎ original parser implementations

21 February 2011

• curprev 00:4700:47, 21 February 2011‎ rosettacode>Markhobley‎ 3,249 bytes +615‎ History of the file format, and the reasoning behing the two comment symbols

16 February 2011

• curprev 20:2320:23, 16 February 2011‎ MikeMol talk contribs‎ 2,634 bytes +223‎ →‎"Standard": Agreed.
• curprev 20:1120:11, 16 February 2011‎ rosettacode>Jofur‎ m 2,411 bytes +217‎ →‎"Standard": language specific?
• curprev 20:0020:00, 16 February 2011‎ Tikkanz talk contribs‎ 2,194 bytes +136‎ →‎"Standard": +1
• curprev 18:4918:49, 16 February 2011‎ rosettacode>Kevin Reid‎ 2,058 bytes +324‎ “standard”

11 February 2011

• curprev 04:4104:41, 11 February 2011‎ rosettacode>Kernigh‎ 1,734 bytes +351‎ So I wrote a Ruby example...
• curprev 03:5903:59, 11 February 2011‎ rosettacode>Paddy3118‎ 1,383 bytes +611‎ →‎current task: +1 on .ini file format

10 February 2011

• curprev 22:5922:59, 10 February 2011‎ rosettacode>Dkf‎ 772 bytes +266‎ What about .properties or INI? They're at least clearly defined…
• curprev 22:2822:28, 10 February 2011‎ Rdm talk contribs‎ 506 bytes +506‎ Created page with "== current task == Ok, so we currently have a task here without any implementation. But I find it odd that we are supposed to set a value based on the contents of a comment in ..."