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 07:53, 17 September 2014
, 9 years ago→Arbitration?: please tell me if and where I am wrong
m (→ooRexx is an Interpreter of Classic Rexx (and MUCH more): added a comment about o-o languages.) |
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) (→Arbitration?: please tell me if and where I am wrong) |
||
Line 185:
===Arbitration?===
If you would both do a 50 word summary then you could ask people to vote and abide by the consensus. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 22:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
: I don't know how to ask people for a vote (there were only two involved in this discussion) but here is a list of twelve statements that I consider to be TRUE and invite anybopy's contradiction. The very long discussion at hand is addressed in statement 7 below.
<br>1. You never complained when I added a Rexx program in the REXX section (new or alternate version).
<br>2. You complained when I (once) used there a feature not supported in '''Classic''' Rexx (thanks).
<br>3. Modifying all current REXX programs to be accepted by ooRexx would be a huge effort (change AND text).
<br>4. Entering the modified versions in the ooRexx section would make ooRexx' rank larger than Rexx' but introduce lots of redundancy.
<br>5. '''Classic''' Rexx means different things to different people.
<br>6. Ideally all interpreters give the same result for a program (apart from the interpreter's or compiler's version, of course).
<br>7. Adding output for a program from several interpreters makes sense when they differ (e.g., the RANDOM and JUSTIFY bifs of REXX).
<br>8. Rexx programs using features added by ooRexx are entered in the ooRexx section possibly stating the minimum version to be used.
<br>9. Two implementations of a language are compatible if each possible program yields the same result when run on both.
<br>10. Implementation B is upward compatible with A when every program that executes successfully on A runs on B yielding the same result
<br>11. ooRexx is not fully upward compatible with Classic Rexx but to a large extent.
<br>12. Programs that obey a list of restrictions (by not using features no longer existant in ooRexx) yield identical results for both.
--[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 07:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
== entering ooRexx entries in wrong language section ==
| |||