Talk:Idiomatically determine all the characters that can be used for symbols: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Talk:Idiomatically determine all the characters that can be used for symbols (view source)

Revision as of 07:49, 18 February 2018

26,593 bytes added , 6 years ago

m

→‎Arbitration?: corrected an HTML tag (was misspelling).

Anonymous user

rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger

Revision as of 08:11, 17 September 2014 (view source) Walterpachl (talk \| contribs) m (→‎ooRexx is an Interpreter of Classic Rexx (and MUCH more): typo and formatting) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 07:49, 18 February 2018 (view source) rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger m (→‎Arbitration?: corrected an HTML tag (was misspelling).)
(22 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 185: ===Arbitration?=== If you would both do a '''50 word''' summary then you could ask people to vote and abide by the consensus. --[[User:Paddy3118\|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118\|talk]]) 22:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC) : Here's my '''48 words''':<br>Is it ok to add programs written in Rexx and the results when executing them with ooRexx in the REXX section as long as they don't use features existant only in ooRexx and thus yield exactly the same result when run with other REXXes (or deviations where applicable)?<br>--[[User:Walterpachl\|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl\|talk]]) 09:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC) : I don't know how to ask people for a vote (there were only two involved in this discussion) but here is a list of twelve statements that I consider to be TRUE and invite anybopy's contradiction. The very long discussion at hand is addressed in statement 7 below. Line 201 ⟶ 202: <br>12. Programs that obey a list of restrictions (by not using features no longer existant in ooRexx) yield identical results for both. <br>--[[User:Walterpachl\|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl\|talk]]) 07:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC) ----- (I apologize ahead of time to the Rosetta Code admins and others for duplicating the above statements and breaking them up below in order to address the points.) Since you listed so many "true" statements of yours that I thought I'd address them point-by point here.   I really wish you hadn't entered this long list of "true" statements here on Rosetta Code which I feel then have to be addressed, not withstanding your invite.   This almost endless listing of truisms is very subjective.   My singular opinion concerning all of this is:   Enter '''ooRexx''' output in the ooRexx language section. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 21:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC) <br>1. You never complained when I added a Rexx program in the REXX section (new or alternate version). :::: Nor why should ''anyone'' complain?   I did not do a lot of things.   <nowiki> <humor> Shame on you Paddy, you didn't complain either. </humor> </nowiki> -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 21:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC) <br>2. You complained when I (once) used there a feature not supported in '''Classic''' Rexx (thanks). :::: Yes, I pointed out some syntax errors in the (Classic) REXX entry that wasn't appropriate for the REXX section.   I wouldn't characterize it as a complaint. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 21:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC) <br>3. Modifying all current REXX programs to be accepted by ooRexx would be a huge effort (changing AND testing). :::: The REXX section is for Classic REXX.   It would be silly and a gihugeic waste of time to modify all those programs just to make them suitable for another language, not the least of which is that I don't even have an ooRexx interpreter installed.   To even suggest that the programs be modified for another language (and then tested) borders on folly.   Since ooRexx has it's own language section, it wouldn't matter that much what the definition of a Classic REXX interpreter is if output from ooRexx would be in the ooRexx language section. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 21:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC) <br>4. Entering the modified versions in the ooRexx section would make ooRexx' rank larger than Rexx' but introduce lots of redundancy. :::: There is no need (my weak opinion) to modify Classic REXX programs and then enter them in the ooRexx language section, that wouldn't show anything different from the original algorithm, but I certainly don't want to hinder or deter anyone from adding a <nowiki> {{trans REXX}} </nowiki> and doing the testing when using ooRexx (in its own language section).   I don't understand your concern about rankings, why is that even an issue? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 21:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC) <br>5. '''Classic''' Rexx means different things to different people (I know of at least two). :::: Yes, this is one thing I agree with, but I disagree with the number;   I believe it to be many.   The meaning of what Classic REXX is (and what a Classic REXX interpreter is as well) causes much debate and discussion, that is the major reason that ooRexx has its own language section --- then the subject is mainly moot and needn't be addressed and discussed endlessly (seemingly) on Rosetta Code. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 21:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC) <br>6. Ideally all interpreters give the same result for a program (apart from the interpreter's or compiler's version, of course). :::: There are other differences (whether or not it's a bug is based on some variations of definitions).   I've found a whole ****load (wheelbarrow, I meant to say) of differences between Classic REXX interpreters, most fixed as bugs, others dismissed as working as designed (WAD, ... sigh) --- essentially, you believe what you want, we believe what we want.   One problem is which Classic REXX standard is being used (or adhered to).   I normally roll back to what I consider as the "gold standard", the IBM CMS implementation of (Classic) REXX, nobody can argue that that version isn't a Classic REXX as that's where it was invented and is maintained as such to this day.   Not all interpreters belong in the Classic REXX section, ooRexx belongs in the ooRexx language section, NetRexx belongs in the NetRexx language section. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 21:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC) <br>7. Adding output for a program from several interpreters makes sense when they differ (e.g., the RANDOM and JUSTIFY bifs of REXX). :::: '''ooRexx''' output belongs in the ooRexx language section, not the (Classic) '''REXX''' section.   Adding output from object-oriented languages in the wrong language section (i.e., not the "base" language) shouldn't be allowed, it just clutters up the "base" language with an o-o version, whether or not that example uses o-o constructs or features.   If people want to see what ooRexx has for output, look in the ooRexx section. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 21:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC) <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).   Furthermore, no matter which program is used, when using the ooRexx interpreter, enter those results in the ooRexx language section. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 21:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC) <br>9. Two implementations of a language are compatible if each possible program yields the same result when run on both. :::: Er, no.   Two languages aren't compatible just because they both "execute" identical programs:   '''K=1'''   (as a simple example) will probably be executed identically on all manner of programs, not just REXX.   Two languages are compatible if they have compatible features (or equal, if you will).   ooRexx has quite a number of features/options/extensions that aren't compatible or supported by the Classic REXX interpreters, and, of course, vice versa.   I believe that since ooRexx can't interpret all Classic REXX statements, it's not a Classic REXX interpreter.   I know it can execute ''most'' statements, but like chimps, we share 98% of DNA.   Close, but no cigar. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 21:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC) <br>10. Implementation B is upward compatible with A when every program that executes successfully on A runs on B yielding the same result :::: I don't quite understand this statement.   So the case of       <big>'''upper @'''</big>       (which isn't compatible with ooRexx) means that ooRexx isn't upward compatible with the other?   I may be getting the wrong idea about your statement.   That would make ooRexx not compatible with any Classic REXX. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 21:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC) <br>11. ooRexx is not fully upward compatible with Classic Rexx but to a large extent. :::: Even '''if''' ooRexx was fully upward compatible with Classic REXX, ooRexx still has it's own language section.   People go to the Classic REXX section to look and/or use copies of that REXX code to use with their Classic REXX interpreters.   They go to the ooRexx language section to see ooRexx output (or programs). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 21:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC) <br>12. Programs that obey a list of restrictions (by not using features no longer existant in ooRexx) yield identical results for both. :::: That would depend on the list of restrictions (is it complete?) --- I say it isn't, as witnessed by a long discussion on this very topic in some older postings of the '''comp.lang.rexx''' newsgroup.   It is not my dog, I don't want nor feel to need to list all the differences, I don't care what they are as I deal with only Classic REXX and that is my only concern and focus.   Whether or not whatever differences/enhancements/additions/incompatibilities exists in ooRexx, is one major reason that ooRexx has it's own language section.   I see no reason whatsoever why Classic REXX programs (REXX entries on Rosetta Code) need to conform (or be changed) to another language's (ooRexx) restrictions or idiosyncrasies.   -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 21:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC) ----- Since I have to resort to a very short (50 words) synopsis of what I believe about entering Classic REXX programs on Rosetta Code   (without having to define what Classic REXX or other terms are): ::: '''REXX''' is for Classic REXX interpreters. ::: '''ooRexx''' is for ooRexx regardless that it does (or doesn't) use ooRexx syntax or features. ::: Programmers can peruse ooRexx to observe ooRexx differences. ::: The fact that ooRexx ''may'' execute Classic REXX programs doesn't deter that:   output from ooRexx should be in the ooRexx section. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 21:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC) ----- P.S.:   By the way, I'm not asking anyone to vote on this issue, I believe it should be decided (once and for all) by some (or all) Rosetta Code administrators). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 21:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC) :: As for me I do ask for votes and I would be extremely surprised if they would disallow to add programs to the REXX Language section that can be run by all available REXX interpreters, including ooRexx. Is that what you are asking for, or what?--[[User:Walterpachl\|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl\|talk]]) 22:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC) ::: No, ... I guess it is the "what".   Please carefully re-read my succinct summary (immediately above the separator line).   I have never stated that ooRexx ''is'' a classic REXX interpreter, so I don't include ooRexx as being one of the Classic REXX interpreters, much as you want it to be.   Although ooRexx ''may'' execute some Classic REXX programs, ooRexx output belongs in the ooRexx language section.   I don't believe I can make it more plainer and clearer than that. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 22:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC) :::: This is kind of ridiculous (sorry for being harsh). Since we can't really define what Classic REXX is or isn't (different things to some (you say many) people, we cannot define "Classic Rexx Interpreter". ooRexx is an interpreter that interprets a huge subset of all possible REXX programs exactly as many other REXX interpreters.<br>Subset: those that don't use... read my 48 words '''carefully'''. It is irrelevant whether the list of trouble spots that I listed is complete. One may find more when attempting to run programs with ooRexx. Some people even do! The 3 (three) problems I have with your programs and ooRexx I have enumerated many a time.<br>To place the ooRexx '''output''' in the ooRexx section without copying the source would be most unreasonable, so would it be to copy programs.<br>PS: I said '''REXX Interpreters'''.<br>Differences should be shown where the REXX programs are (in the REXX '''language''' section). The sections are, my understanding, for languages, not interpreters.<br>--[[User:Walterpachl\|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl\|talk]]) 07:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC) ::::: I don't agree that Classic REXX can't be defined.   It's that there wouldn't be (most probably) an '''agreement''' on a definition.   I have tried to define Classic REXX here before, but the disagreements degenerate into what ooRexx does or doesn't do with (all) Classic REXX programs (rather than focusing on what a Classic REXX is), and even ignoring all the new ooRexx features, not the least of which is object-oriented programming and other constructs, ooRexx is a different language.   As long as ooRexx kept to the ooRexx language section, it wasn't a problem; it was a non-issue.   The situation hasn't come up before the latest cross-posting of ooRexx in the Classic REXX section.   It appears that because there is a disagreement about what ooRexx is (claiming it is a Classic REXX interpreter) and how (or if) it can interpret some (but not all) Classic REXX statements is causing a stumbling block in agreeing to a definition of what Classic REXX is.   I get the impression that because there is a belief that ooRexx can interpret some Classic REXX programs, that makes it a Classic REXX interpreter.   It doesn't make it so.   Because of the differences (not to mention all the object-oriented features, syntax, and other options/features that make it a much different language), ooRexx has it's own language section in Rosetta Code, and this essentially nullifies the arguments of what ooRexx does or doesn't do with Classic REXX programs; the solution has been to keep ooRexx concerns/issues/differences/programs/output in the ooRexx language section (which helps keeps a proper focus on ooRexx for those people who are interested in ooRexx and it's concerns).   If ooRexx programs and/or output would be kept in the ooRexx language section, there wouldn't be a need to have this discussion.   For a clarifying example, there isn't a definition of any of the BASIC interpreters, because each BASIC interpreter on Rosetta Code has its own language section, nobody cross-posts different versions or dialects of BASIC in other language sections, so there is no need to have endless discussions on what any particular (version) of BASIC will do with another's (BASIC) language statements.   There is no need to define what each language is or what the capabilities are that are different from other BASIC languages.   The same is true for the various '''C''' languages and its derivatives and evolutionary variants.   (I don't know all the variants of either BASIC or '''C''', but I hope my points are clear).   I don't understand the issue about "trouble spots";   these are some differences between Classic REXX and ooRexx interpreters and point out some of the language differences between the two (but only in one direction, things that ooRexx can't handle or does differently from Classic REXX programs --- and never mentions the things that Classic REXX can't handle with ooRexx features, syntax, and other options).   As long as ooRexx stuff is in the ooRexx language section, there is no need to include a list of what Classic REXX things don't behave as they do in ooRexx.   I have never seen a list on Rosetta Code that tries to differentiate between two other languages ('''C''' and '''D''' for instance? --- there simply isn't a need, they each have their own language section).   I never mentioned nor implied that one should place the output of ooRexx in the ooRexx language section ''without'' copying the source (program).   Where did you ever get such an idea like that, to separate the output from the program across two language sections?   That's another straw-man argument, inferring that I stated something, and then saying that is unreasonable.   When putting ooRexx output in the ooRexx language section, the program would be included along with the output (as it is currently done with all other programs on Rosetta Code).   Furthermore, ooRexx is a separate language (not just a dialect); that should be obvious from the (additional) object-oriented features, syntax, features, and other options not found in any Classic REXX interpreter. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 14:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC) :::::: The more words you use the more difficult it is for me to follow your arguments (others may have the same problem.)<br>You say "I don't agree that Classic REXX can't be defined. I have tried to define Classic REXX here before"<br>Please tell me where or define it here.<br>Note that ooRexx is in the list of Rexx implementations shown on the REXX page.<br>The list of Rexx specifications I know includes TRL1 CMS TSO Regina ANSI TRL2 ooRexx, and they all are more or less different from each other.--[[User:Walterpachl\|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl\|talk]]) 16:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC) ::::::: Yes, I know that there are a lot of flavors of REXX and their implementations described on that page.   I defer about ooRexx being more or less different (as well as NetRexx, for that matter, even though a lot of common syntax is shared), it is very different, inclusion of o-o is a big part of that.   As I understand it, that page has to do with the REXX family of languages, not just Classic REXX, but it is the page that's linked to when clicking on the '''REXX''' keyword. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 17:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC) :::::: There were times when you were constructve. Im the REXX section of the task "24 game" one can see that: <br> version 2<br>"The above was created for Classic Rexx and can be used, unchanged, for Regina and other implementations of Classic Rexx. After recent changes it can also be used, unchanged, for ooRexx."--[[User:Walterpachl\|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl\|talk]]) 17:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC) ::::::: 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 216 ⟶ 313: :::: An ooRexx (language) entry is any program that one enters and uses with the ooRexx interpreter to produce output   (no matter what features/syntax/options you use or don't use).   The interpreter you choose to execute the program was ooRexx, and coincidentally, ooRexx has it's own language section.   Output from an ooRexx execution should be placed in the ooRexx language section along with it's source.   If it helps resolve this issue, I invite you to please enter such entries and output in the ooRexx language section. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger\|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger\|talk]]) 23:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC) == Vote: Walter 1, Gerard 0 == There is no reason to limit a demonstration of a program in some language to a specific interpreter/translator/compiler, regardless of whether the competence of that translator is limited to successfully execute the source at hand. Furthermore, I would kindly ask you to stop this discussion in this public place, because it is damaging to the reputation of the language. I spend a lot of time to explain the merits of all Rexx versions to people, and I am not pleased to see that when I succeed in attracting someone's attention - which is not hard with Rexx' power and simplicity -and they do a quick google for some examples, they land into a discussion of infinitesimal details by older men with nothing better on their hands. Gerard, I know that Mark has introduced a special flag for Regina to keep you happy. I hope your crusade against ooRexx is not fed by personal ressentiment because the ooRexx team was not so forthcoming. Do realize that the differences you hint at are microscopic compared to the differences in implementations of languages that are called VB(A) or CSS, or Prolog or LISP for that matter. I do thank you for submitting the Rexx programs and correcting the incompatibilities. Whether they are illustrated with examples in ooRexx, Regina, VM Rexx, TSO Rexx, MUSIC/SP Rexx, Brexx or others is of no consequence. This discussion might give the uninitiated reader the impression that Rexx is an incoherent mess, which it is not, it is exactly the opposite. Not many programming languages are standardized, and with such high quality of standard as Rexx. The young people I show examples of what it can do, in different versions on different platforms, are impressed by it, and some look for tools to run it on their own laptops, phones or tablets. Please help them instead of discouraging them. [[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)