[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-formula] Our next adventure: Types and conversions
David A. Wheeler wrote: > A. Logical is REQUIRED to be distinct from Number. > Inconsistent with OOo, Lotus 1-2-3, & many others. > B. Logical is REQUIRED to be the same as Number: > Inconsistent with Excel, Gnumeric. > C. "Logical" used as a notional type (so that we can easily > identify functions that take/return logicals), but we > explicitly permit EITHER of the above. > I recommend "C". If implementations can co-exist > with this variance, I think we can too. I would be happy with either A or C. I would not be happy with B. A lot of standard programming languages do C or something like it. > Next up: how do they interact? In particular: if a function > expects a Number but gets a Text value, then what? > A. Text auto-converted to Number. Excel & Gnumeric > B. Text converted to 0. Lotus 1-2-3 does this. > C. Text converted to 0 if via reference, and auto-converted > to number if in-line. OOo 2.0 does this. > D. Text converted to error. Eike thinks this would be safest, > E. Allow some set of the above. Spreadsheet users could > add VALUE() calls where they wanted conversions. I don't like A. I like B, D and E. If I were designing a spreadsheet for myself I'd pick B or D but I think that compatibility with existing products demands E. So my vote would be for E. Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ /\/_/ ...and starting today, all passwords must contain \/_/ letters, numbers, doodles, sign language and / squirrel noises.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]