[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-comment] ODFF: more suggestions: CORREL
Hi Eike > > NumberSequence: <snip> > > - 6.2.6 makes no reference to how the sequence is generated - > > rows before columns? columns before rows? Order is vital for > > example in CORREL. > > Put on the TODO list. However, in case of CORREL(), if both sequences > are evaluated in equal order, there should be no difference whether it > is row-wise or column-wise, or am I mislead? Yes, quite right, but I think the order should be specified in case an enthusiastic application decided to do it different ways for x and y, perhaps for some optimisation reason. > > CORREL: > > - NumberSequence could be generated by ignoring eg text. > > Like it is defined in "Conversion to NumberSequence". Aha! yes, that was what I meant ;), but this is the confusion between NumberSequence and Conversion to NumberSequence again: A NumberSequence is 'converted' to a NumberSequence by "Conversion to NumberSequence" - doesn't this need a re-think? Don't they at least need different names, eg - A SomethingSequence is 'converted' to a NumberSequence by "Conversion to NumberSequence" - that works OK? Or A NumberSequence is 'converted' by a specified method (not to be called "Conversion to NumberSequence")...? The latter gets my vote - having NumberSequence as a type, and the conversion specified in the type definition. If you fancy that, I could work on some revised text over Christmas? ==== By the way, a minor detail, PEARSON doesn't have CORREL under 'See also'. CORREL does have PEARSON. David
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]