User talk:Gerard Schildberger: Difference between revisions

 

::: I'm almost in complete agreement with your first two statements (quite possibly 100%). Classic REXX interpreters that implement the same set of language syntax (rules), with minor differences, contribute to the making of computer programming language dialects.   ooRexx has different BIFs, statements, syntax, etc., and in many people's opinion (and mine), those differences makes it a different language.   I think I know what you meant about writing (ooRexx?) REXX programs that obey ''that subset'', but the programs that I code are for Classic REXX and don't limit writing to a subset --- but I try to limit almost all my Rosetta Code REXX programs to what most Classic REXX programmers use (or know).   Of course there are exceptions, and they are noted when I code a REXX program for a particular Class REXX interpreter that has specific (additional) BIFs to accomplish a particular Rosetta Code task.   For Classic REXX programmers using/running (Microsoft) Windows on PCs, that usually means Regina REXX   (probably the most used, most common [free] REXX interpreter).   [I presume you meant writing/using ooRexx statements that obey ''that subset''.]   Saying that, I'm in complete agreement with your third statement.   The minor disagreement with the 2nd statement is that there are subtle differences in the way Classic REXX and ooRexx treats, ... well, objects versus variables (or rather, their values), if you will, especially stems (possibly tail stems) and/or stemmed arrays --- (and I'm not an expert in ooRexx), but I'm recalling an acute discussion in a REXX newsgroup about this very issue where Classic REXX treats the assignment of a stemmed array (such as   '''a. = b.''') differently than ooRexx (as I recall).   This was sometime ago and I don't recall the details.   ooRexx being what it is (object orientated), it's that way by design (and/or by definition).   The good news is that situation is an uncommon occurrence I should think (programming wise), and is therefore more of an academic discussion/exercise.   Having said that, somebody may point out the error of my assumptions. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 07:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

 

== Please summarize your edits ==

 

I still haven't found out how to create another (separate) page to hold larger examples. I also have to learn how to link them. [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]]

:If you want to create a new page, simply type the intended title in the search bar on the left (you should probably do this in a new tab/window) and hit "Go". The page it takes you to will have a "create" tab at the top and (I think) a link somewhere in the text of the page that will let you create the page. From there, it's just like editing any other page. If you're creating a separate page for a large example or large output sample, you should keep the title of the new page to the form of "task title/language name" or something similar (if you get it wrong, someone will probably correct it). To link to that page (or any other page on the wiki) from the task page, put the title between two pairs of square brackets: <nowiki>[[Page title here]]</nowiki>. You can read up on all sorts of neat wiki tricks [[Help:Formatting|here]]. Also you can watch the [[Special:RecentChanges|Recent changes feed]] after you make edits to see what other people do to them (this is where the edit summary comes in handy). --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 15:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

 

 

==Request for dialogue==

The text of an email sent to Gerard:

Date: 7 December 2010 04:40

Subject: Rosetta code.

Thanks.

 

 

I was beginning to wonder what

Sorry Paddy; at the point where people start sending open letters, I figure it's time I finally take a look.

 

 

Michael Mol:

The sequence I've observed to work the best, as far as creation of successful tasks:

 

some trial solutions.

2) As people add trial solutions, they'll hit on bugs in the spec

describe the task to meet the original writer's desires.

4) The task is refined, and we jump back to step 2.

to {{task}}. If I have time, I'll throw a note out to RC's Twitter and Facebook pages announcing the new task.

 

and onward still occur; it just gets a little rougher.

 

 

--

 

(I got permission to post the reply.) --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 04:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

 

<code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> doesn't work in edit summaries. Fortunately, it's unnecessary. Take a look at [[Special:RecentChanges]] or a specific page's history and you can see that every edit's author shows up automatically, while your tildes remain tildes. —[[User:Underscore|Underscore]] ([[User talk:Underscore|Talk]]) 01:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

 

==Check edits to: [[Quaternion type]]==

Hi, some of your edits to the page left equations that would not parse and show as glaring red errors. Could you review you edits please and fix the page. <br>Thanks. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 22:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

 

 

: You're very welcome. &nbsp; It's a nice and handy feature to have &nbsp; (the ability to &nbsp; '''turn off''' &nbsp; syntax highlighting if the user chooses to). &nbsp; I wish it would be standard for two reasons. &nbsp; Having the ability to turn off syntax highlighting (for some computer programming languages, some parts of the highlighting are hideous, in the case of REXX, the use of italics for comments mangles some glyphs and make the comments very hard to read). &nbsp; The other good thing is, without highlighting, larger Rosetta Code tasks &nbsp; (with numerous solution) &nbsp; render faster. &nbsp; &nbsp; -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 

== RC POP.OUT ==

 

 

 

 

 

: <big> <big> <math>\sqrt{-1}</math> &nbsp; &nbsp; 2³ &nbsp; &nbsp; &Sigma; &nbsp; &nbsp; <big><math>\pi</math></big> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ··· &nbsp; </big> and it was delicious.