Re: [office-formula] YEARFRAC again

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

On Thu, 2007-25-01 at 15:59 +0100, Eike Rathke wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> We already found out that OOo calculation for YEARFRAC's ACTUAL mode in
> some corner cases is wrong, so I'll remove that TODO. However, there's
> another TODO for YEARFRAC
> 
> | TODO: Applications should probably implement the other actual/actual
> | systems; we need to allocate “basis” numbers to them that everyone
> | agrees on.
> 
> I don't think we should define other systems there, for
> interoperability's sake. I'll remove that as well if noone disagrees.

I don't think a smallest common denominator system really improves
interoperability. I think we should define as many basis numbers as
reasonable and then define the behaviour if a basis number is not
implemented. This may encourage programs to in fact support those basis
numbers.

The alternative would be that spreadsheets have to add their own
functions to support those other systems.

Andreas 


-- 
Andreas J. Guelzow, Professor
Dept. of Mathematical & Computing Sciences
Concordia University College of Alberta