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

-----

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)