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

Content added Content deleted

Inline

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 Also, it doesn't matter if ooRexx may execute a Classic REXX program (or not), ooRexx still has its own language section, and it exists for more than one reason (and I'll not go into listing them here --- but the ooRexx language section DOES exist, and it's for ooRexx programs) --- puting ooRexx programs yet into another language section is a waste of space on Rosetta Code and also user's time and effort when trying to find a Classic REXX solution. &nbsp; I have no agenda trying to push ooRexx (and it's claim that it can run/execute Classic REXX programs). &nbsp; We've been here before, '''REXX''' is for any Classic REXX interpreter, '''ooRexx''' is for the Object Orientated Rexx interpreter(s). &nbsp; I won't remove the (2<sup>nd</sup>) ooRexx entry that was moved to the ooRexx section; &nbsp; if the original author wants to remove it, they can of course. &nbsp; Let's try to keep the two languages separate and refrain from entering ooRexx programs under the wrong language category. &nbsp; A while back, someone actually used the (my) Classic REXX program (in its entirety) and executed it ''in toto'' under another (non-REXX) language, and it produced exactly the same output (and it was noted as such in that other language's '''output''' section). &nbsp; That another language (not any form of REXX) correctly executed the Classic REXX program doesn't give me license to enter that Classic REXX program under another language (section), even though it executes the REXX program perfectly correct (sic). &nbsp; There is no need to enter an ooRexx program under two language entries (REXX and ooREXX). &nbsp; Putting another language under the '''REXX''' entry just to show the differences between Classic REXX and ooRexx is not the way to show the differences. &nbsp; One can just view the output of the ooRexx program (under the ooRexx section) and compare it with the program under the REXX entry to see the differences (that goes for '''NetRexx''' as well). &nbsp; Adding a duplicate version under the wrong or inappropriate section is contrary to the philosophy at Rosetta Code (as I understand it). &nbsp; I know there is a falsely-held belief that ooRexx will execute Classic REXX programs, but there is enough differences such that ooRexx has its own section, so the claim that ooRexx executes (all/some/many) Classic REXX programs is a mute point. &nbsp; I do understand that ooRexx ''' ''may'' ''' correctly execute some Classic REXX programs. &nbsp; But there are enough differences in the two languages that having ooRexx programs under the Classic REXX language section would just clutter up the entries in the REXX section; &nbsp; why make it more difficult for people who want to just look at Classic REXX programs and not have to wade through ooRexx programs as well? &nbsp; Putting ooRexx programs under the Classic REXX language section will also make it a royal pain in the neckhole if a person wanted to find an ooRexx program for a Rosetta Code task, and they had to look in &nbsp; two &nbsp; places, ooRexx and also (Classic) REXX. &nbsp; There are enough versions of Classic REXX programs as it is. &nbsp; That is one reason why ooRexx has its own language section, but certainly not the only reason). &nbsp; Furthermore, I certainly don't want to go through 700 different Classic REXX entries and label each of them as being Classic REXX and which Classic REXX interpreter that was used to test the program which produced the output (not the least of which are the mis-entered ooRexx programs in the Classic REXX section) --- it's always easy to suggest that somebody else do the work. &nbsp; So, that would be another reason to keep and have ooRexx entries in the ooRexx language section. &nbsp; Classic REXX programs in the REXX language section, ooRexx programs in the ooRexx language section, NetRexx programs in the NetRexx language section. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 : I still have to carefully read your essay, bur let me ask a few questions:
+:: Well, reading carefully is always a good thing to do (but I question what a ''few'' means). &nbsp; I choose to respond to your numerous questions point by point instead of lumping all the responses at the end. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 <br>Is section REXX to contain REXX programs or implementations?
+: The REXX language section is for Classic REXX. &nbsp; ooRexx isn't a Classic REXX interpreter &nbsp; (I know, I know, saying that to some people is cause for fisticuffs). &nbsp; However, having said that, ooRexx &nbsp; ''may'' &nbsp; execute a Classic REXX program, but that isn't the issue. &nbsp; ooRexx programs should be entered in the ooRexx language section. &nbsp; The fact that ooRexx may execute a (Classic) REXX program doesn't negate the fact that ooRexx has it's own Rosetta Code language section. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 <br>WHY do you mention NetRexx in your essay? Just to make it longer??
+: No, NetRexx is ''a'' REXX (or a REXX variant or something else, depending on which people you ask). &nbsp; But the question is moot, as there is a Rosetta Code language section for NetRexx, and that's where all the NetRexx programs have been entered. &nbsp; NetRexx program entries have never been added in the REXX language entry (... that I know of, it's possible that was done sometime in the past). &nbsp; The 2nd snide question isn't worth responding to. &nbsp; Try to remain civil here at Rosetta Code. &nbsp; It's a slippery slope. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 <br>Can all REXX implementations that you use run my version successfully?
+: Again, that isn't the issue. &nbsp; What matters is that you entered and executed an ooRexx program with ooRexx in the (Classic) REXX language section. &nbsp; That's what the ooRexx language section is for. &nbsp; Enter ooRexx programs in the ooRexx language section. &nbsp; I have quite a few different Classic REXX interpreters, not all of which are easy to use with other REXXes being installed; not all REXX implementations play well together (er, ... that is, they can't be implemented without stepping on each other's toes, and for another thing, they all seem to want to be named REXX if only in part, ... go figure). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 <br>Aren't my variable names more intuitive than yours?
+: Again, that isn't the question. &nbsp; This isn't a contest, Walter, of which program has the more intuitive variable names. &nbsp; Using intuitive variable names is a very subjective ... more black art than anything else. &nbsp; Not that this is germane, but I often see that when people talk about intuitive variable names, they are usually too long and fill up the program code space and programmers often use those names in lieu of comments or documentation. &nbsp; I believe there is no substitution for comments, but them's fighting words and I certainly don't want to start a debate on that topic. &nbsp; Again, ooRexx programs should be entered in the ooRexx language section. &nbsp; This shouldn't be about egos about who has the prettiest names, more intuitive names, better structure, better and/or consistent indentations, more comments, more whitespace, aligned comments (or not), better this, better that ... yada, yada, yada. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 <br>What's wrong when I show what a particular implementation does with a program?
+: ooRexx should be entered in the ooRexx language section. &nbsp; That is the venue for ooRexx. &nbsp; If you want to show what an ooRexx program does, enter it in the proper language section. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 <br>Does REXX have a changestr BIF?
+: It depends what REXX implementation (and/or which REXX language definition) you're referring to: &nbsp; TRL1, TRL2, ANSI REXX standard, what the IBM (CMS and/or TSO gold standard) does, etc. &nbsp; Or you could change the question slightly and ask which REXX interpreter does or doesn't have the '''changestr''' bif. &nbsp; This would be a good subject when discussing different (levels or implementations) of various REXX interpreters, but that would be a lengthy topic (or essay), but I'm not sure that information would be appropriate or valuable on Rosetta Code. &nbsp; But I certainly wouldn't stop anyone from attempting it. &nbsp; Collecting all that information from the numerous Classic REXX implementations would be daunting and time consuming. &nbsp; I wonder how many AREXX and/or OS/2 users are out there. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 <br>Why do you ever so often say "some REXXes~ don't contain... CHANGESTR," for example?
+: Simply because at least four of REXX interpreters that I know of '''do not''' have the '''changestr''' bif, so I mention it and point to a version that does work for all (Classic) REXX interpreters. &nbsp; By the way, if you know of a REXX entry (of mine) that uses '''changestr''' and doesn't have a mention of the link to the '''changestr''' subroutine, please give me a shout on my user talk page, and I'll fix that. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 <br>Where did I ask you to rewrite your programs to please ooRexx (and me)?
+: I don't understand your question. &nbsp; When did I stop beating my wife? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 <br>WHAT's WRONG with my statement "ooRexx is an interpreter that can perfectly process "classic" Rexx programs that obey a few (actually very few) restrictions."?
+: I don't know what you mean by ''perfectly process'', but I am assuming that it means to process (execute?) without failure (as in being upward compatible). &nbsp; I also don't know what you mean by "few", or actually, ''very few'' restrictions. &nbsp; Put a number to the word ''few'', and a list would be better. &nbsp; Whether or not ooRexx can or can't execute a (Classic) REXX program, ooRexx programs should be entered in the ooRexx language section. &nbsp; What is the ooRexx language section for? &nbsp; Are ooRexx programs to be entered then in two different language sections? &nbsp; That situation would beg duplication (or redundancy). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 <br>Why do you delete other person's programs?
+: Please be specific. &nbsp; Which programs (and where) did I delete other person's programs? &nbsp; Are you talking about REXX programs, or are you just shooting a shotgun here? &nbsp; This is one reason why almost everybody doesn't sign their signatures to a program, the entries belong to Rosetta Code (as I understand the statements at the bottom of every screen page when editing is being performed), and I hope I'm using the correct phraseology. &nbsp; Maybe esteemed others could add a few words here about program entry ownership (or lack of it). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 <br>Why do YOU add a REDUNDANT program to the ooRexx section?
+: If you're referring to the different version of an ooRexx program that was entered in the (Classic) REXX language section that was then '''moved''' to the ooRexx language section, it looked different to me, it executed with different statements, and had different output. &nbsp; If it was (or is) redundant, then it shouldn't have been entered at all. &nbsp; And if you think the ooRexx program is redundant, then remove it. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 <br>SIGH --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 05:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
+: I share your sighing. &nbsp; This too is getting old for me, all that is being discussed here (essay or not) is a rehash of ooRexx and (Classic) REXX differences (or execution of same depending on some number of unnamed restrictions, at least, not named here on Rosetta Code). &nbsp; There shouldn't be this amount of snipping or snide questions. &nbsp; If you need to classify what I write as an essay, that's OK, essays should be wrote carefully and be read carefully, and I try to choose my words carefully and I'm trying to informal as well while being accurate. &nbsp; It's not my intent to quantify the differences. &nbsp; My only point (and I've said it a few times, please enter ooRexx programs in the ooRexx language section. &nbsp; It's a simple application of the golden rule. &nbsp; How would anyone feel if I would enter "correct/working" (Classic) REXX entries in the ooRexx language section? &nbsp; Keeping ooRexx programs in the proper language section makes all these issues go away. &nbsp; I've written what I meant to say as clear as I can. &nbsp; If you would enter ooRexx programs in the ooRexx language section, there wouldn't be a need to discuss at length the differences between ooRexx and (Classic) REXX programs and/or interpreters and/or implementations. &nbsp; Another bad thing about entering an ooRexx entry in the (Classic) REXX language section is, how can anyone else find out which Rosetta Code tasks '''don't''' have a (Classic) REXX entered? &nbsp; When perusing the &nbsp; ''tasks not solved for REXX'' &nbsp; would have an entry (well, it would be an ooRexx entry). &nbsp; They would have to look at every Rosetta Code task (and drafts) to find out which (Classic) REXX entries are actually ooRexx entries, and not (Classic) REXX entries. &nbsp; That defeats the purpose of having a list of unsolved Rosetta Code tasks (or unsolved draft tasks). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
+-----