Anonymous user
User talk:Gerard Schildberger: Difference between revisions
m
corrected some misspellings.
m (elided a draft topic.) |
m (corrected some misspellings.) |
||
Line 2:
Hi, I think you left a comment ''the above will erroneously return:...'' on a PLI example. Could you change this to use the template incorrect so that PLI users are flagged that the example needs attention. Thanks. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 18:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I confess I didn't know the proper methodology to be used (this was my very first time on Rosetta Code). The fallout from that excursion was not what I expect at all, not exactly a pleasent experience. It would've been nice to actually include the righteous text so I could hit the ground running and re-enter the correct incorrect template. I had thought that putting a comment near the code would get someone's attention and fix the problem. My bad. I was trying to figure out how to contact the author of the code, but I didn't have the skills at that time. I have previously removed the offending comment, leaving the original problem intact, and as far as I know, the errors are still there. To make it worse, I've already forgotten which entry it was, and looking back at it all, I regret trying to address the issue (error). There are so many such errors that I came across a few weeks ago, and I'm glad I didn't mung up more erroneous pages. I'm wondering at this point if erroneous pages are less erroneous with erroneous flagged corrections, or flags that are erroneous? I wish the process would be more forgiving and above all, much easier to implement without the headaches. If I ever get the time, I may revisit some pages, but I rarely look at other people's code anymore, except for clarification of the specifications of the task to be solved. What is the protocol about these talk pages? Do they hang around forever, or am I supposed to delete (edit) them later when they lose their relevance? [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]]
Line 75:
::We must distinguish between languages and implementations. ooRexx, if you will, implements a subset of Classic Rexx and I am happy with that. Programs written obeying this subset have their place under REXX. Programs that use oo and other extensions (i+=8) should and must go to ooRexx (or be corrected). Again: thanks for telling me about my oversight. --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 05:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
::: I'm almost in complete agreement with your first two statements (quite possibly 100%). Classic REXX interpreters that implement the same set of language syntax (rules), with minor differences, contribute to the making of computer programming language dialects. ooRexx has different BIFs, statements, syntax, etc., and in many people's opinion (and mine), those differences makes it a different language. I think I know what you meant about writing (ooRexx?) REXX programs that obey ''that subset'', but the programs that I code are for Classic REXX and don't limit writing to a subset --- but I try to limit almost all my Rosetta Code REXX programs to what most Classic REXX programmers use (or know). Of course there are exceptions, and they are noted when I code a REXX program for a particular Class REXX interpreter that has specific (additional) BIFs to accomplish a particular Rosetta Code task. For Classic REXX programmers using/running (Microsoft) Windows on
== Please summarize your edits ==
Line 87:
Most of my updates (followups) are so minor that it would be distracting for casual readers what I've done, and I try to keep forcing my self to add comments to most of my REXX examples, something which seems might be a waste of time as I see very little evidence elsewhere of copious (or even brief) comments on (at) the statement level. I spend quite a bit of time dumbing-down my code to make it understandable for the novice (REXX) programmer. In doing so, I try to add (statement) comments on what the statements are doing/accomplishing, but the more advanced one gets, the more shortcuts one takes, and the code becomes obtuse with very little effort, sad to say.
REXX leads itself to writing a lot of "one-liner" subroutines (or, at the least, pretty short subroutines/procedures). This hides the commons tasks that happen over and over again, the
cough, cough, since around 1982 or so. And I'm a regular
Line 95:
:Hi Gerard, Adding the summary takes little time, and really helps others. Thanks. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 06:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure where these summaries end up, as I never had seen any. Is it under the "history" section? I must confess, when I look at some code, I don't care to read about how and/or when changes where made, all I care about is the final product (so to speak) and I'm not
:The summaries do end up on the page history, but they also end up on [[Special:RecentChanges]] and in that page's RSS feed (http://rosettacode.org/mw/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom). People like to keep an eye on the recent changes feed. Adding a summary there helps us decide if we need to check on an edit. Also you don't need to add a signature (<nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki>) in the summary. It doesn't get evaluated there (as you can probably see in the recent changes feed) and every place that the edit summary shows up already has your username and a timestamp attached to the edit. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 13:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Line 130:
I was beginning to wonder what
<br><br>[] Watch this page
<br><br>''did'' as I never got any notification(s) of any page watched. I've since learned that I had never entered an E-mail address (I had
Line 185:
... if you're a student of newsgroups, then you know of what I speak. Not all discourse
is
Line 292:
The task also assumes that there is only one answer, while in fact,
the general case may have no or many answers. The task stated to
find THE answer, and didn't say anything about the
other answers (if there were any). ... And so it goes. It didn't mention
if "the" would match up to "Einstein" for example (caseless
or what to do about punctuation (the obvious thing to do would be to ignore
'em). Yes, yes, I know, there weren't any of those pesky critters...
Line 371:
I wish a lot of the tasks wouldn't be so ego-
that should be address, in my humble opinion. Well, maybe next
Christmas then ...
|