Re: [office-formula] Small Group

["David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>]

> Do we have a sense of where we are with the small function group?  If not 
> done already, it might make sense to get that group done first, across all 
> areas (statistical, financial, etc.) and package that up as something 
> worthy of wider review.

All of the "small" functions were defined in the base document, so they
are already in there.  Several people have looked them over already,
but please, I encourage everyone to "beat them up".

> Adding definitions for the remaining functions is 
> unlikely to cause us to readdress syntactical issues.

Right.  We had a syntax and the "small" function set; we've rejiggered
the syntax (with more participation) and dealt with other key issues.
Which is why we're adding the larger set.

> The upside would be that this would give an early heads up on the 
> OpenFormula syntax recommendations, as reviewed and approved by the TC and 
> made available for public review.  It would also give implementors 
> something to start working on.  By the time they are done digesting that, 
> we would probably have the medium set done and ready for review, etc.  I 
> like this more than saving all our good work for release only after we've 
> defined the Gamma and Bessel functions <g>.
> 
> What's the phrase, "release early and often"?

Aren't we already doing that?  We're releasing about every week.
Implementors are already making changes to their apps based
on the draft spec - KOffice and wikiCalc just changed the association of "^",
and wikiCalc even went and implemented the small group.

It's not going up to the TC, true.  Think that's critical?

--- David A. Wheeler