Talk:Pxem

• Some parts of Pxem is very ambiguous and we need to make clarified and extended version.
  • Original one used not to tell from uppercases and lowercases when it is next to dots, but we must tell them clearly.
  • .p, .o, .n are too ambiguous because it isn't shown whether it should output newlines or shouldn't. What about this: lowercase ones do while uppercase ones don't.
  • We are not really sure what to do if your stack has only an element while getting conditional commands which requires two elements.
    • Should we get to corresponding .a or not?
    • Must we throw the only remaining element away?

(Above comment originally by User:YamTokWae on 08:38, 18 September 2018 on List of ideas, moved here by – b_jonas 18:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC))

Announcement:I'm fixing the article.

Due to having found that Pxem#Specifications has some incorrect informations, I'm fixing. When done, I'm announcing so.--YamTokTpaFa (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Now it's almost fixed! --YamTokTpaFa (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

About unclear conditional looping instructions.

Original manual said what if the stack has inadequate item(s) when the pointer finds .w, .x, .y, and .z: it just described not to test the condition. The new blog just describes that the items never lost in those case.

And today I realized the original manual showed examples what begins with ak.-.z. It seems to imply that never will it skip to matching .a if inadequate items. --YamTokTpaFa (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This language should be one of deque languages

Look at a command .v; it reverses entire content of stack. This feature, actually, lets you to use stack as a deque, too! So, the true data structure is deque, I think.--YamTokTpaFa (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it is stack based, because the other side is relatively hard to access without reversing the stack. --àÂse ëË y± comme×s! (Please sign your comments!) A (taÑ) 02:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC) 12:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

looping command description confuses me.

Original description intended that on echo program

1.w.o.i.c12.-.+.a.s.pxe

, it says why

1

is necessary first: これは次の.wでループが抜けないようにするためである, which says to prevent program from not getting out of the loop on next .w in Japanese. But the reference implementation says empty stack is truthy. This seems to the contradiction. nk. seems to have intended that a stack having insufficient items to be falsey, but the reference imprementation treats it truthy. --YamTokTpaFa (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)