Talk:Jump anywhere: Difference between revisions
→Signal use in Rexx: Is Regina Documentation that important?
m (→Signal use in Rexx: waffling words in language specification documention. -- ~~~~) |
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) (→Signal use in Rexx: Is Regina Documentation that important?) |
||
Line 42:
:::::: 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)
::::::: Is this the right place to discuss the Regina documentation which you seemingly do here? I haven't touched your text 'over there!'. Just tried to warn others (and maybe even you) about use of Signal. Please leave it at that and/or rephrase your text in the task if I convinced you to some extent.
I am talking here about classic Rexx and ooRexx, by the way. --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] 20:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Example:
| |||