Talk:Idiomatically determine all the characters that can be used for symbols: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) m (→ooRexx is an Interpreter of Classic Rexx (and MUCH more): formatting and typo) |
m (→ooRexx is an Interpreter of Classic Rexx (and MUCH more): results for Classic REXX interpretors.) |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
:::::::: and I don't understand your logic. Why should a REXX program (and you seem to agree that version 2 is such an animal) not be entered in the REXX section. You show execution results for MANY REXXes. Why not also for ooREXX?<br><br>Could you enter the results of version 2 with all your other REXXes?<br>removing version 1 then would get rid of the expected redundancy. Maybe some independent opinion is asked for. Paddy? Michael? <br>Close to midnight here, so I'll shut up now. --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 20:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC) |
:::::::: and I don't understand your logic. Why should a REXX program (and you seem to agree that version 2 is such an animal) not be entered in the REXX section. You show execution results for MANY REXXes. Why not also for ooREXX?<br><br>Could you enter the results of version 2 with all your other REXXes?<br>removing version 1 then would get rid of the expected redundancy. Maybe some independent opinion is asked for. Paddy? Michael? <br>Close to midnight here, so I'll shut up now. --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 20:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::::::: I show execution results for some Classic REXX interpreters that are convenient for me to execute (I have other Classic REXX interpreters, but they are a lot of trouble to set up and execute without stepping on my other installed classic REXX interpreters, so I rarely bother with them). I've entered one Classic REXX program and used (various) Classic REXX interpreters and shown their output. I've said it before, ooRexx executions belong in the ooRexx language section. The fact that ooRexx ''may'' execute a Classic REXX program doesn't make ooRexx a Classic REXX interpreter (I know this definition is arguable and is a bone of contention --- but if ooRexx executions would be placed in the ooRexx language section, this would be a moot point). PL/I ''may'' execute a Classic REXX program, that doesn't make PL/I a REXX interpreter; nor would anyone expect there be a PL/I entry entered/executed the REXX section to demonstrate that point. I see no reason to remove the Classic REXX version 1 program entry, there is no redundancy except for the misplaced posting/execution of an ooRexx entry in the Classic REXX language section. Version 2 (if executed with ooRexx) belongs in the ooRexx language section. As an aside, if ooRexx executes classic REXX programs, have it execute version 1. Yeah, I know, it's a tongue in cheek request. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
----- |
----- |
||