Talk:CRC-32: Difference between revisions
→REXX: MY lines tagged now
(→REXX: added comment about the SIGNAL construct. -- ~~~~) |
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) (→REXX: MY lines tagged now) |
||
Line 137:
I don't quite understand the reasoning/logic behind the test program:
: if the program gets a SYNTAX error ''anywhere'', it counts as OK.
:: not anymore --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 19:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
: if the program successfully does the two '''D2C'''s, it counts as an error in one case, but not the other.
: if the program successfully does the 2nd '''D2C''', it is counted as an error.
:: that's because it should not do it successfully --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 19:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
: no check is made to verify that the value of '''D''' matches the value of the 1st argument (999999999).
:: the result is compared with the value that should be there --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 19:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
A '''parse version x; say x''' was added after the 1st statement.
<br>A '''say 'digits=' digits()''' would be a nice addition.
Line 181:
::: The word I used was ''innoxious'', not ''obnoxious''. Also, I believe it's considered bad form to change people's quotes (I don't mind the correcting of an obvious misspelling, but not the content) --- especially on the discussion (talk) page. The reason I had the various flavors of Regina listed was that some Regina versions were considering numbers as integers that may or may not be considered integers, i.e.: -.1e7 and 12345678912345 for instance. I don't know where Regina REXX currently stands on this. There was some discussion of this topic in the newsgroup '''comp.lang.rexx''' a few months (or maybe years) back; it had to do with what a user expected (REXX's principle of least astonishment) versus what the REXX standard stated (in both examples, both are clearly integers, but maybe not so much according to '''numeric digits'''.) I used the word ''integers'' instead of ''whole numbers'' 'cause some people where saying (in the newsgroup) that negative numbers weren't whole numbers, and some also stated that zero isn't a whole number. &nsp; Sheesh! ''Natural numbers'' and ''counting numbers'' were also thrown around rather loosely. It was a lively and animated discussion as I recall. Walter, if you're going to add your comments interspersed within my signed comments, please sign your inserted statements. It appears that I'm contradicting (my bullet points) with myself and it's not clear at all who is stating what. Also, now that the REXX program has changed drastically, my (REXX) output no longer matches anything posted, so the results are meaningless. That's what programming versions are for (version 1, my output; version 2, ...). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
:::: sorry about *noxious (I did not know either word in my restricted English. I tried to respond with a better version. --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 19:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
::: So Regina would not have passed my test suite. Time to ask for Regina's POV (which I will do when I am back home) --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 09:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Line 197 ⟶ 199:
Perhaps this discussion would be better served where there're more (varied) REXX experts (and REXX authors) around --- [such as the REXX newsgroup, '''comp.lang.rexx''']. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
:: the ticket raised by someone else should fit your request. Why can't you accept that Regina is wrong here (according to the standard? BTW: I entered a doc ticket for ooRexx now because there is a wrong sentence in the C2D description. --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 19:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
|