[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-formula] Functions that need to be identified as TBD
I said: > > The "_OOO" naming convention is lousy; Andreas J. Guelzow: > I agree that it is lousy. I think we should choose the semantics that > make more sense to the regular one. If it is not the EL semantics we may > want to implement Excel's version as LEGACY... > > If we think OOo's is just weird we should probably use another prefix > COMPATIBILITY... or so hoping that over the long term the more sensible > semantics takes over. It's hard to have a good group decision UNTIL their different semantics are well-understood, though, so we need to document the semantics first. So, how do we want to document them to start with? 1. Document as separate functions, with OOo semantics with "_OOO" suffix. 2. Document as separate functions, with OOo semantics with "_OOO" suffix, Excel semantics as "_XL" suffix 3. Document as separate functions, with _ADD suffix (possibly change to _XL?). 4. Put in a "TODO" warning for these functions that there are semantic differences so important that OOo felt compelled re-implement Excel's semantics as well as their own, until that decision was made. Note: This would work fine elsewhere, but won't work for CONVERT; these are completely different functions that unfortunately share the same name. Once their semantics are fully defined, we'll at least know what we're deciding on. --- David A. Wheeler
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]