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 20:05, 13 September 2014
, 9 years ago→ooRexx is an Interpreter of Classic Rexx (and MUCH more): retort to retort to ...
(→ooRexx is an Interpreter of Classic Rexx (and MUCH more): added a rebuttal.) |
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) (→ooRexx is an Interpreter of Classic Rexx (and MUCH more): retort to retort to ...) |
||
Line 31:
::::::: It seems to me that the your logic is circular. If a REXX program can be executed (and IS executed) under (or with) ooRexx, enter it in the ooREXX language section. The REXX section is for Classic REXX implementations; ooRexx is a different language AND implementation (as witnessed by many differences, notably numerous options/features/capabilities/etc, whether or not they are being used in any specific example) --- in any case, the output is different, so please show that difference in the ooRexx language section. This just seems like a justification in entering an ooRexx execution under the (Classic) REXX language section. If using an ooRexx interpreter, enter it under the ooRexx language section. That is the venue for ooRexx. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:33, 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 REXXex. 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)
-----
| |||