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

::: Of course I refuse (again and again) to accept the (false) fact (see a variant above).   It wouldn't make sense to refuse, refuse, refuse, refuse, and then accept.   I also disagree on what a "few" is, not to mention ''very few'' restrictions.   And even if listed, is the list a "few"?   I looked up the word, and it is:   a small number, one or two, or two or three, hardly any.   Since they weren't listed anywhere, I don't know the number.   You're setting up a straw-man argument here, and I could say the same thing about your beliefs, but that kind of argument is pointless, needless, and sophomoric.   The fact that I consistently refuse to agree (regarding your statement above) with you shouldn't be berated, and this was the first time I've ever seen you use the word "perfectly" in that context, and I have no inkling what you mean by "perfect"   (perhaps "always"?)   That I refuse to accept a falsehood (consistently) or that I refuse (again and again) to accept one of your "facts" shouldn't be ridiculed.   Let's keep this discourse civil, and about keeping ooRexx output(s) in the ooRexx language section.   If you wanted to plea to me personally, you could just do what you normally do, write me an E-mail.   You obviously have my address. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 21:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::::: Perhaps the phrase &nbsp; ''tongue in <strike> check </strike> cheek'' &nbsp; isn't that well known or understood on the other side of the pond. &nbsp; I didn't mean for the error(s) to be posted, it was to show that a Classic REXX program being executed by ooREXX may (or may not) be execute correctly; hence, there is an ooRexx language section for executing the ooRexx interpreter. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 22:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

::::::::: (Struke a typo, added correction). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 21:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

-----

I apologize for the typo of the second mention of "tongue in cheek". &nbsp; Fortunately, the first use was spelled correctly, so I know you knew what I was referring to. &nbsp; (I've marked the typo and corrected it).

I have to disagree with your statement about the point of this task. &nbsp; The '''REXX''' language section if for (Classic) REXX; &nbsp; ooRexx interpreters (programs and/or output) should be placed in the ooRexx language section. &nbsp; Just because you can (or may) execute a Classic REXX program with ooRexx doesn't mean that you should enter the ooRexx's output in the (Classic) REXX section to show the difference --- (that's the reason PL/I was mentioned, but you've missed the point). &nbsp; That's why there's an ooRexx language section; you can show ooRexx's output there. &nbsp; If people want to know how NetRexx or ooRexx output(s) differ, they merely look in those language sections. &nbsp; That is one reason why there ''are'' language sections.

As for common views: &nbsp; stating that they ''are'' common views doesn't make it so. &nbsp; It should be obvious from these discussions that your statement isn't true.

The REXX language section is for Classic REXX; &nbsp; NetRexx and ooREXX have their own language sections to show their output(s), and they have their own language sections because of the many differences which differentiate those languages from Classic REXX (whether or not those other languages can execute Classic REXX statements/syntax or not). &nbsp; The REXX language section isn't a catchall place that you can add any varient or dialect (or ...), especially when ooRexx has it's own section. &nbsp; Claiming that you can add ooRexx under the Classic REXX section just because it makes sense to you isn't a valid reason, output from ooRexx shouldn't be added willy-nilly to other language sections. &nbsp; Output from ooRexx should be in the ooRexx language section.

Perhaps to make this point clearer: &nbsp; There are many ''BASIC'' language sections, yet no one is entering all manner of BASIC programs to other variants (dialects/versions/...) to each other BASIC language sections. &nbsp; It would just be one ginormous clutter. &nbsp; Everybody enters their version of a BASIC program into the respective BASIC language section. &nbsp; ... Regardless that a program could be executed by another BASIC compiler/interpreter. &nbsp; The same logic is applied here: &nbsp; ooRexx output goes in the ooRexx language section. &nbsp; I believe that this talk section header (title) of &nbsp; ''ooRexx is an interpreter of Classic REXX ...'' &nbsp; is probably the underlying basis of this discussion; &nbsp; ''ooRexx '''may''' interpret Classic REXX''. &nbsp; Of course, that doesn't sound as good (and a bit hollow), but there are restrictions to what ooRexx will tolerate, as you've shown ooRexx to do with the (Classic) REXX version 1 of this Rosetta Code task. &nbsp; This should be obvious of one reason why ooRexx has its own language section. &nbsp; I've heard the argument that ooRexx handles all Classic REXX (even perfectly!?), and if ooRexx doesn't, then it's not Classic REXX. &nbsp; An interesting circular definition &nbsp; (and by the way, I'm not accusing anyone in particular of making such a statement and/or argument). &nbsp; The discussion then sometimes veers off about the definition (or lack thereof) of what Classic REXX is (or the lack of a clear definition), and statements about ooRexx being a Classic REXX interpreter, and so it goes.

I haven't in any way restricted what ooRexx does (or places its output) with any type of program when placing anything of ooRexx stuff in the proper section, ooRexx. &nbsp; ooRexx has it's own language section and you certainly have the right to include any manner of ooRexx output(s) to it's proper place: &nbsp; ooRexx. &nbsp; Just because ooRexx &nbsp; can or may &nbsp; execute some REXX program shouldn't give you carte blanche to enter ooRexx output to other language section, that is why there is an ooRexx section. &nbsp; ooRexx output belongs under ooRexx. &nbsp; This is the crux of my discussion. &nbsp; That you want to add the output of ooRexx yet to another language section (when ooRexx already has it's own language section) is just duplication and it clutters up the (Classic) REXX language section. &nbsp; If there are differences (or even if there aren't any), then show that in the ooRexx language section. &nbsp; You'll never see me enter a Classic REXX output in the ooRexx section just to show the differences. &nbsp; To me, that would be absurd, and it's strange that it isn't obvious to everyone. &nbsp; If you can agree to the obvious reason for that, than maybe you can see why ooRexx's output doesn't belong in the (Classic) REXX language section, but rather that ooRexx output(s) belong in the ooRexx section. &nbsp; That's where I would look to see what/how ooRexx solves a Rosetta Code task.

If you can't see my point about another language (PL/I for instance) executing the exact same code (as REXX or any language), then you're not looking at the bigger picture.

I don't know why you're introducing yet another definition &nbsp; ("ideal" programs), &nbsp; it hasn't been used before, and it appears that you're trying to define a word/phrase to help justify your adding of ooRexx output to the (Classic) REXX language section. &nbsp; As I read your definition (concerning identical results), well, hell's bells, none of the results (for ONE Classic REXX program) give identical results &nbsp; (except for those REXX interpreters which were written by the same programmer). &nbsp; This isn't the place to introduce a loosey-goosey definition to help justify cross-posting another's language program in the wrong language section. &nbsp; The (Classic) REXX language sections, as well as NetRexx and ooRexx sections) where around for quite some time now, and up to now, we've lived OK without adding another definition or criteria for "ideal" programs. &nbsp; This isn't an ideal world, and there are enough differences just between the Classic REXX interpreters, yet alone with ooRexx and NetRexx. &nbsp; ooRexx and NetRexx have their own syntax rules (some common syntax, but there are restrictions, and other extensions/capabilities/features/...), and is one main reason that they each have their own language section.

I'm really not the least bit interested in your definition of the REXX programs that I've entered, and whether or not they fit your "ideal" description. &nbsp; I enter Classic REXX programs (and note if they only work for specific implementations); I also prefer not to judge critically of others programs and post the criticism. &nbsp; It's more polite to just enter one's own version and not be insulting to another's handiwork. &nbsp; (My car is better looking than your car, and it's faster, and gets better mileage, AND has whitewalls?) &nbsp; People in glass houses shouldn't ··· &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Or, do onto others like you'd like to have them do to you.

If you'd just added the ooRexx output to the ooRexx language section, all this verbage wouldn't be necessary. &nbsp; I understand your agenda of trying to make it seem that ooRexx can execute all Classic REXX programs, but that doesn't belie the fact that ooRexx entries belong in the ooRexx language section. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 21:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)