Re: [office-comment] ODFF: NPV

["David King" <openoffice@drking.plus.com>]

> > So far, IIRC, there wasn't the need to specify a general evaluation
> > order for 2D range and array arguments. If it turns out that there is
> > some general behavior that is needed to be referred at several places we
> > should add that.
> 
> I think LINEST and LOGEST are another two.

Sorry Eike, that is incorrect.

However
XNPV
SERIESSUM
CORREL
PEARSON
... and others
all use NumberSequence requiring an order, and NumberSequence 
seems to allow rectangular, even cuboid, references.

Would '6.2.6 Conversion to NumberSequence' be a good place to 
talk about that?

Extending the topic, I still feel that Section 4 (Types) would be 
a better place to define NumberSequence et al - anything that a 
parameter can be should be grouped together in one place to make 
it easier for the reader.

eg:
"4.8 NumberSequence
A NumberSequence is either:
* A Number, Text, or Logical
  A number sequence of length 1 is created as specified by 
Conversion to Number.
* A reference
  A sequence of numbers is created from the values...etc."

ODFF shouldn't be concerned if applications implement 
NumberSequence without defining a separate type, although 
mentioning the fact is worthwhile.

David