[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: YEARFRAC differences
YEARFRAC has a minor variance between Excel and at least OOo - anybody know more about the unwritten semantics of this function? Background: I love the fact that we're creating all these test cases. It helps us be clear on the spec, and it also helps us discover stuff that we _thought_ everyone agreed on... but maybe not. Here's one such case: YEARFRAC. OpenOffice.org and Excel agree on results generally, including lots of complicated cases. But sometimes when basis=1 (real year, real month!), the results differ by a very small amount. Given: =YEARFRAC("2000-12-26";"2001-02-11";1) Excel produces: 0.128767123 OOo produces: 0.128415300546448 These days are 47 days apart, and these answers are consistent with the programs deciding on a different number of days in the year: 0.128767123287671 ... a 365-day year, Excel's answer. 0.128415300546448 ... a 366-day year, OOo's answer. Since 2000 was a leap year, and 2001 wasn't, that makes sense. Anyone know more about the unwritten rules for this function? Any comments? For the moment, I'm going to embed a pile of test cases for this function, so that we can reveal "hidden" semantics, and see if anyone else already knows something I don't. --- David A. Wheeler
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]