Anonymous user
Talk:Jump anywhere: Difference between revisions
m
→Signal use in Rexx: waffling words in language specification documention. -- ~~~~
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) m (→Signal use in Rexx: typo) |
m (→Signal use in Rexx: waffling words in language specification documention. -- ~~~~) |
||
Line 40:
:::: What exactly is too liberal about my statement? I don't understand your concerns about what is allowed as far as the REXX language specification (as per the rules of using the SIGNAL instruction). I have no opinion about the validity of the REXX specifications, only that what was shown is a legal construct --- especially if the code is actually shown in the Regina REXX language specification ("The Regina Rexx Interpreter" PDF document). As for your opinion about the "badness" of the '''signal''' instruction, that's an opinion, but '''signal''' is still part of the REXX language, warts and all. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 09:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
::::: Too liberal: That you talk only about DO LOOPS when do groups are affected as well. --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] 11:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::: Then you should say what you mean. Restricting my comments about the legal syntax of the REXX '''signal''' instruction as mentioned in a language definition shouldn't be considered ''liberal''. If I mention that the (Regina REXX) documentation mentions ''only'' '''DO''' loops (and not '''DO''' groups), then that shouldn't be labeled ''liberal''; I'm just parroting what the documentation says, not interpreting it. The '''signal''' instruction shouldn't effect '''do''' groups, just active '''do''' loops (and a few others such as '''select''' groups and '''if''' statements). I say ''shouldn't'' because the Regina REXX documentation says one thing but implements another. Please take care about labeling the statements/opinions of others with judgemental names. Also note that the Regina documentation says the construct that I quoted as being legal, but the Regina REXX documentation appears to waffle (with statements like: ''Although TRL1 and TRL2 allow this construct, it will probably be disallowed in ANSI''). I feel very uncomfortable and uneasy when language (specification) documentation uses such words like ''will probably''. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 19:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Example:
<lang rexx> Do
| |||