Talk:Object REXX

ADDRESS Editors

"... ADDRESS instruction allows commands to be redirected to specific environments such as Bourne Shell, Bash, Z-Shell, Command Prompt, some editors ...". I have never addressed editors, what are potential examples? Dylwi (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples include ISPF, KEDIT, The Hessling Editor (THE), TSO EDIT, Tritus SPF (TSPF) and XEDIT. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PROCEDURE versus routine

@Dylwi and Oorexx: In addition to allowing the definition of procedures and functions with the ::ROUTINE directive, ooRexx supports the old PROCURE instruction. The existing text makes it seem as if only the former was allowed.

I suggest reinstating the previous directive header and subheaders from permalink/1260653536, marking it as a stub, and adding a section that contrasts PROCEDURE to ::ROUTINE. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As oorexx is compatible with Rexx it should be clear for Rexx programmers that procedures are of course available. For others who read for the first time about ooRexx, "procedures" would be available by looking at the top about concepts available to the language. As there is no mention that "procedures" would be replaced by anything else, nor that they would be removed, it seems that inferring that they would not be available would be wrong. As this is an introductory, overview article, there should be not too much details given, rather the reader should turn to the oorexx language documentation (e.g. rexxpg.pdf, rexxref.pdf).

If adding more concrete information regarding "procedures", what would be needed is defining the term "internal routine" to mean a label that is used to jump to (call, signal) and if called being able to return with (a function)) and without a value (a subroutine). This by contrast to the directives routine and method, which both may employ internal routines.

Maybe we should wait for more feedback in general and observe, whether other Rexx programmers believe that ooRexx would not have procedures anymore, or whether they get irritated by the routine (method) directive. Oorexx (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about changing Procedures and functions that are not specific to a particular class are defined with the ::ROUTINE directive. to A new way to define procedures and functions is to use the ::ROUTINE directive. I'm not sure whether to mention the implicit return at the next directive,or to say anything about scope. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ::routine directive is certainly useful even outside of packages, as it is not subject to the fall-through behavior of procedure. Why would someone be irritated by it? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Granularity of examples?

Should examples show only basic uses or also common variations, e.g., specifying the character to remove in TRIM.? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should limit ourselves to basic uses, as we would overwhelm readers by adding common variants. Rosetta Code could be the right place to present common variations in more detail. Dylwi (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]