Re: [office-formula] Proposal: Drop "huge" group;anycriticallymissing functions for "large"?

[Andreas J Guelzow <aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca>]

On Thu, 2006-27-07 at 16:56 -0700, David A. Wheeler wrote:
> Andreas J. Guelzow:
> >Would it be acceptable or at least up for discussion to change the
> >semantic of functions such as BINOMDIST so that they makes more
> >mathematical sense? (The Gnumeric developers do receive requests to
> >change the semantic of Gnumeric's implementation of function such as
> >BINOMDIST to that end. So far we refused since we viewed it as
> important
> >to have the same semantic as the other spreadsheets using that name.)
> 
> Yes, absolutely! 

Great!

> (...)  The obvious
> solution is to provide the "clean" function and the
> "ugly compatibility" function.  We should probably do that
> in some cases, and not in others, and it'll take judgement.
> I would be delighted to identify a general solution for
> "nasty" functions.  Maybe a "legacy" group? Perhaps their
> names all begin with "LEGACY." so that their names can be
> used for reasonable functions?
> 
> What would you recommend?

I personally like your suggestions. Then applications are free to decide
how to handle the issue (since they can choose to use different names in
their interface than are savd in an OpenDocument/OpenFormula file).

Andreas Guelzow