Anonymous user
User talk:Idrougge: Difference between revisions
m
→Loops/For: expanded the wording and explanation.
(→local/global variables: added some comments to a talk section.) |
m (→Loops/For: expanded the wording and explanation.) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 164:
and probably some other things as well (such as the use of the REXX API interface, but that's too complicated to get into). But, ''in general'', external programs can be thought of as PROCEDUREs, ignoring the above exceptions, and possibly others. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 22:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
:::Hence, they don't share global variables with the calling program. --[[User:Idrougge|Idrougge]] ([[User talk:Idrougge|talk]]) 23:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
==adding other examples==
When adding other examples, please add them after any existing examples. This is the custom at Rosetta Code, as the previous examples may refer to each other, and adding an example before those would invalidate any ordinal references. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 02:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:I didn't do it for attention, I just wanted the least convoluted example to come first so as to ease the learning curve. --[[User:Idrougge|Idrougge]] ([[User talk:Idrougge|talk]]) 11:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:: I only assumed it was done accidentally or absentmindedly, and I made no comment or implication concerning the why. But if we all had to judge another's efforts as to being more or less convoluted than our own, and then entering one's own solution first because it's less, er ... convoluted, there would be no end to the jockeying around of various implementations (examples) --- not to mention the wars that would start. Essentially, generally it's first come, first in the list of examples/entries. But I wouldn't want to be a person to say another programmer's code is (more) convoluted; that would just lead to making judgements about other peoples coding efforts and quality. If someone's code is more concise, or shorter, or better documented, or quicker, has more options, or easier to peruse, ... (or pick a quality) ... then let the example/entry speak for itself. There isn't any reason to get insulting about other programming efforts (and I'm assuming that calling a solution convoluted could be construed as insulting to most programmers) in an open forum such as here on Rosetta Code. In addition, I'm not sure about your meaning behind ''the learning curve''; I never assumed that Rosetta Code is about teaching people on learning how to program in a particular programming language, only to show a method (or methods) in solving a particular (Rosetta Code) task, and also to show (multiple) algorithms in solving problems (so as to illustrate different approaches with the tools that a particular programming language has), and see how a solution(s) could be implemented. Most computer programming languages have many excellent tutorials on teaching how to learn that language. If teaching is part of your intent, then plenty of comments in the program explaining what the statements do (specifically or generally) would be a good start. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:::I don't want to get involved in any conflict, so I'll refrain from further comments. --[[User:Idrougge|Idrougge]] ([[User talk:Idrougge|talk]]) 21:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
:::: There is nothing wrong about asking questions or having a disagreement, as long as the statements aren't inflammatory or if the argument starts getting condescending, insulting, and/or judgmental (or in another words, casting stones). If one can't make comments without getting offensive, then nothing said is the wiser choice. Too often (alas, even among Rosetta Code old-timers), a programmer's ego creeps into the best intended discussion, and those words will be there forever. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
And, if nobody else said it, a belated welcome to Rosetta Code! I'm sure you're going to enter some noteworthy entries/examples/solutions. There are plenty of unsolved/unentered Rosetta Code tasks (with regarding to REXX). Just in case you're new to the navigation around Rosetta Code, check out this link:
::: [[http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Reports:Tasks_not_implemented_in_REXX Reports: tasks not implementd in REXX]].
<br> -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
== palindrome detection ==
You're using a non-ANSI function, '''compress'''. You could just use the '''SPACE(xxx,0)''' BIF instead.
The '''upper''' function isn't available in most REXXes. You could just use the '''translate''' BIF instead.
Failing that, you could add the <nowiki> {{works with}} </nowiki> template thingy for AREXX and/or Regina with the AREXX stuff.
-- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 02:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
<br>
-----
<br>
I just noticed that the text of the Rosetta Code task ''palindrome detection'' had changed (apparently, some time ago), so I deleted my 2<sup>nd</sup> REXX version and re-did version 1 to comply with the new task's requirements. Even after the wording in the task prologue and task requirements changed, it still seems a bit fuzzy and slightly contradictory (see the talk section). But, it was the author's first attempt at a Rosetta Code task, so there's that. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 02:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
== Loops/For ==
The Rosetta Code task requirement(s) '''Loops/For''' states:
Show how two loops may be nested within each other,
with the number of iterations performed by the
inner <big>'''for'''</big> loop being controlled by the
outer <big>'''for'''</big> loop.
(The highlighting was added by me. Note that both inner and outer loops are both '''FOR''' loops.)
This particular Rosetta Code task isn't about using the simplest '''DO''' loop, but to demonstrate how the outer '''DO''' loop with a '''FOR''' construct is to control the inner '''DO''' loop with a '''FOR''' construct. I do agree that the inner '''DO''' loop can be coded more simpler, (and indeed, it could've even been coded without a '''DO''' loop), but the task's requirements dictated/directed otherwise. I don't know if the task's author had in mind '''DO''' loops or '''FOR''' loops, but I interpreted the author's intent as a '''DO''' loop with a '''FOR''' keyword to control the number of iterations, which is the closest construct that REXX has to mimic a '''FOR''' statement that is used in other computer programming languages. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
| |||