Anonymous user
Category talk:OoRexx: Difference between revisions
m
→ooRexx fully compatible with classic REXX: add comments to the talk page. -- ~~~~
m (→ooRexx fully compatible with classic REXX: egocentric signing of entered code. -- ~~~~) |
m (→ooRexx fully compatible with classic REXX: add comments to the talk page. -- ~~~~) |
||
Line 61:
Perhaps you might explain to me why you would object to the rexx code examples here being written in such a way that they would be portable between what are probably the two most popular rexx interpreters. I would see that as an improvement that would serve visitors to this site and cannot understand why you would object. If you do object, then it might be as well to know which of the rexx examples are yours.
: I never thought about "signing" my REXX examples, if that would help someone's understanding of where it would run, I'll do it. It would take me a while to go through the 380+ REXX examples. As I stated elsewhere, I wrote all my code to work on Classic REXX and don't assume it runs anywhere else, nor do I test it for a REXX iterpereter that I don't have installed. I don't write the classic REXX code and keep thinking if this will or will not run on ooRexx. I concern myself to make sure it runs as intended for the Rosetta Code REXX entry for classic REXX. If writing code for maximum portability is good, then writing ooRexx code that doesn't need object-oriented features would also be good, this would lead to more ooRexx code being portable to classic REXX. I hope that one can see the obvious absurdity of that fallactious statement. Of course, you could always look in the history of who entered the code (for the example program). I have noticed that very very very few people sign their code. It seems rather egocentric to do so. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 00:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thanks. --[[User:Sahananda|Sahananda]] 22:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
| |||