Talk:Josephus problem: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) (ooRexx is, to 99.9 percent, a classic Rexx Interpreter! Why deny this and "fight" forever?) |
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) (typos corrected and plea for second opinoin(s).) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::To me and many others ooRexx *IS* not only a Rexx++ as you may call it but also a valid (classic) Rexx interpreter. Minor syntactic "glitches" as I would call them have been removed from the language definition by the ANSII REXX Committee. I tried to document all the little differences somewhere. |
::To me and many others ooRexx *IS* not only a Rexx++ as you may call it but also a valid (classic) Rexx interpreter. Minor syntactic "glitches" as I would call them have been removed from the language definition by the ANSII REXX Committee. I tried to document all the little differences somewhere. |
||
I shall remove the "criticism right now. My words were meant to help other users. |
I shall remove the "criticism right now. My words were meant to help other users. |
||
Yet I DO insist that Rexx programs that don't use the ++, i.e. the oo features, do have their proper place in the REXX category and only |
Yet I DO insist that Rexx programs that don't use the ++, i.e., the oo features, do have their proper place in the REXX category and only those that do (use them) should and do appear under ooRexx. |
||
--[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 07:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC) |
--[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 07:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::Is there anyone else interested in this particular language topic and could they voice their |
|||
opinion(s)? |
|||
Thanks. --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 07:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC) |
|||