Re: [office-formula] CONVERT

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

On Thu, 2007-01-02 at 19:13 -0500, David A. Wheeler wrote:
> > Gnumeric implements Excel's CONVERT and uses that name. I don't know
> > about others but we should probably chose the name assignment to satisfy
> > the majority, so if more functions call Excel's version CONVERT than
> > that name ought to be used for the excel version.
> 
> Does Gnumeric have a name for OOo's "CONVERT" function?  

It sounds to me like OOo's function is primarily multiplication. So
there is no OOo compatibility function as far as I know.

> I don't have my "stuff" with me right now... I vaguely remember a EUROCONVERT being involved somewhere.

Well there is an

EUROCONVERT(n,source,target)

EUROCONVERT converts the currency value @n of @source currency to a
target currency @target. Both currencies are given as three-letter
strings using the ISO code system names.  The following currencies are
available:

    ATS	(Austria)
    BEF	(Belgium)
    DEM	(Germany)
    ESP	(Spain)
    EUR	(Euro)
    FIM	(Finland)
    FRF	(France)
    GRD	(Greek)
    IEP	(Ireland)
    ITL	(Italy)
    LUF	(Luxembourg)
    NLG	(Netherlands)
    PTE	(Portugal)

* If the given @source or @target is other than one of the above,
EUROCONVERT returns #VALUE! error.

as well as an 
EURO(currency)

EURO converts one Euro to a given national currency in the European
monetary union.

@currency is one of the following:

    ATS	(Austria)
    BEF	(Belgium)
    DEM	(Germany)
    ESP	(Spain)
    EUR	(Euro)
    FIM	(Finland)
    FRF	(France)
    GRD	(Greek)
    IEP	(Ireland)
    ITL	(Italy)
    LUF	(Luxembourg)
    NLG	(Netherlands)
    PTE	(Portugal)

* If the given @currency is other than one of the above, EURO returns
#NUM! error.


> 
> Clearly there are cases where we will need to have two different
> functions with different names, when the general functionality is
> similar but the specific semantics are different.  I'd love to have a
> principled way to make the names; names are basically not a technical
> issue & it's easy to endlessly argue.
> 
> The basic idea of "use the simple name for the common function" makes
> sense; we can look at various implementations and give them a vote.
> Adding "_E" for an Ecma/Excel function is sensible where the Excel
> function is bizarre but there's a reason to support it (such as with
> ADDRESS/INDIRECT... indeed, a FLOOR_E and CEILING_E might be a good
> idea).  Conversely, if only OOo has its semantics for CONVERT, a
> CONVERT_O might be okay.

I agree

Andreas


-- 
Prof. Dr. Andreas J. Guelzow
Dept. of Mathematical & Computing Sciences
Concordia University College of Alberta