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?: about defining Classic REXX and other comments.) |
m (→Arbitration?: corrected an HTML tag (was misspelling).) |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 4 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 282:
::::: 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 297 ⟶ 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)
| |||