[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-formula] Semantics
Hi Tomas, On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:37:32 +0100, Tomas Mecir wrote: > > I think all spreadsheet applications handle this the same: SUM, COUNT, > > AVERAGE, and all the like, get passed what OpenFormula called > > a NumberSequence. This by definition ignores string cell content, > > They currently do, yeah. So the question is - do we want it to be like > that ? Yes. > And do we even have a better solution ? No. > I realise that I may be playing a devil's advocate here a bit :) What for? Those functions work on numbers, text isn't a number. I wish all function parameters / operands to numeric operators would behave like that.. > > We'd then end up with a definition of "how does it the one application > > of the big player". Which is not our goal, though will be congruent in > > many but not all cases. > > Isn't this what OpenFormula has been doing so far ? With tests being > adjusted for OOo to pass them and all ... Well, thanks for the flowers, but with the big player I wasn't referring to OOo ;-) > > > I think this introduces the problem of our goal: shall we design a > > > spec based on real spreadsheets, or also put in new/changed things, if > > > we feel that it makes sense ? > > > > Based on real applications, with changes only when and where necessary > > for clear benefits. > > Well, those are the points that I'm trying to raise - where the > current implementations could be considered ... a bit dirty. I don't consider ignoring text in a range to be SUM'ed dirty. Not at all. > Everyone agrees with the complex number problem. Then we have datatype > conversion, and I think that's about all there is to difficult > problems. You're oversimplifying things. We have many areas where different applications currently do not agree. Eike
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]