office message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Next set of public comments for review (#18-#35)
- From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
- To: dwheeler@dwheeler.com
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:22:29 -0400
"David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>
wrote on 06/02/2008 06:47:48 PM:
> I believe #24 is done. This involved handling references to
> empty cells; new text in section 4 (Types) clarifies what happens
in
> these cases.
>
> Basically, there isn't a special type called the empty type.
> Instead, there is
> a type "Reference", which _may_ refer to empty cells or
ranges that include
> empty cells. What happens to empty cells depends on the required
types
> and implicit conversion rules, as defined in section 4. E.G.,
if you use a
> function that requires "Number", but instead is given a
reference to an
> empty cell, then the reference is converted to the number 0. If
the
> function requires
> a NumberSequence, all the empty cells are ignored when creating a
> NumberSequence
> (and just like strings, NumberSequences can be 0 length).
>
Is there a distinction between an empty cell and a
non-existent cell? For example, if an implementation supports only
16,000 columns, A-IV, a common spreadsheet limitation, then what happens
when a spreadsheet formula has a range that extends beyond column IV? Is
that an error? Or are these cells empty? Do we call this out anyplace?
I think that was the thrust of the original comment
#24 -- non existent cells.
-Rob
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]