[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-formula] Considering IFERROR function
Eike Rathke: > As already pointed out on the comment list, for some occasions an > IFERROR(expression;errorcase) does come handy. The function evaluates > 'expression' as usual, and if that results in an error returns the > result of an 'errorcase' expression, otherwise the result of > 'expression'. Also ECMA/MOOXML defines this function. > > I propose to include IFERROR in our ODFF specification. Great! That would be another way to handle the problem I noted earlier (namely, how to prevent writing a complicated expression twice just to override one value). I had originally proposed an "IFEQ" function, which is more general than IFERROR, but it special-cases Error values and isn't implemented anywhere currently. One problem with IFERROR is that it masks WHICH error occurs - you may only want the substitution with one Error value (e.g., NA()). One advantage of IFERROR is that it's simple and straightforward, and that is a VERY GOOD thing. It being implemented somewhere is a good thing too. Andreas J Guelzow: >On first glance this looks equivalent to >IF(ISERROR(expression);errorcase;expression) >but of course this "equivalent" version evaluates 'expression' twice >which can give a different result. Right. Also, 'expression' may be complicated, so only having to say it once is a very good thing. We could add IFERROR, IFEQ, both, or neither. I think we should add at _least_ IFERROR. Comments? --- David A. Wheeler
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]