Re: [office-formula] 3.1 Expression calculation

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Rob,

robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> wrote on 01/15/2009 05:50:21 PM:
>
>   
>> I suppose what triggered my original interest was why we would be 
>> describing anything as it "appears to the end-user." ?
>>
>>     
>
> There is probably a better way to restate the idea rather than "appears to 
> the end user".
>
> The main idea is that we describe a deterministic method of evaluating 
> expressions.  A conforming implementation may use other methods of 
> evaluating expressions, but they shall yield the same results as the 
> method described. 
>
>   
Err, but do we describe a deterministic *method* or do we describe a 
deterministic set of conditions?

Seems to me the latter, which could be done with an abstract machine, it 
the desired result. Yes?

In this particular case, we describe the inputs, the output (all by 
type) and the algorithm to apply.

Its actual application could be accomplished by any number of "methods," 
which any one would be free to choose.

Yes?

Are we just using different terminologies for nearly the same thing?

Patrick
> We make this allowance for sake of differing computational models.  For 
> example a spreadsheet running on a multi-processor machine might use 
> different algorithms for calculating some functions than a 
> single-processor machine might, although they will give the same answer. 
> Similarly, a smart implementation might parse an expression and decide to 
> shortcut the evaluation.  So an implementation could conceivably evaluate 
> "sin(.1)*cos(.5)*0.0" to 0.0 without actually calculating each part of the 
> expression. We don't care what actually goes on inside, so long as it 
> gives the same answer as the method OpenFormula describes.  In other 
> words, we specify constraints on the output, not on the implementation.
>
> For example, ISO C++ puts it like this:
>
> "This International Standard places no requirement on the structure of 
> conforming implementations. In particular, they need
> not copy or emulate the structure of the abstract machine. Rather, 
> conforming implementations are required to emulate
> (only) the observable behavior of the abstract machine as explained 
> below".
>
> Maybe that language could be adopted? 
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
>
>
>   

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)