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

Content added Content deleted

Inline

@@ Line 280: / Line 280: @@
 :::: 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. &nbsp; It's that there wouldn't be (most probably) an '''agreement''' on a definition. &nbsp; 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. &nbsp; As long as ooRexx kept to the ooRexx language section, it wasn't a problem; it was a non-issue. &nbsp; The situation hasn't come up before the latest cross-posting of ooRexx in the Classic REXX section. &nbsp; 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. &nbsp; 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. &nbsp; It doesn't make it so. &nbsp; 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). &nbsp; If ooRexx programs and/or output would be kept in the ooRexx language section, there wouldn't be a need to have this discussion. &nbsp; 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. &nbsp; There is no need to define what each language is or what the capabilities are that are different from other BASIC languages. &nbsp; The same is true for the various '''C''' languages and its derivatives and evolutionary variants. &nbsp; (I don't know all the variants of either BASIC or '''C''', but I hope my points are clear). &nbsp; I don't understand the issue about "trouble spots"; &nbsp; 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). &nbsp; 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. &nbsp; 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). &nbsp; I never mentioned nor implied that one should place the output of ooRexx in the ooRexx language section ''without'' copying the source (program). &nbsp; Where did you ever get such an idea like that, to separate the output from the program across two language sections? &nbsp; That's another straw-man argument, inferring that I stated something, and then saying that is unreasonable. &nbsp; 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). &nbsp; 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)
 == entering ooRexx entries in wrong language section ==