Re: [office-formula] Grouping functions and capabilities

["Tomas Mecir" <mecirt@gmail.com>]

On 7/11/06, robert_weir@us.ibm.com <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> I guess I'm not convinced that classifying the functions, by whatever means,
> changes anything.  As a user, if I want to use a FOO() in my spreadsheet and
> it isn't there, then the fact that the spreadsheet was rated "Level 1" is
> little comfort.  I don't have my FOO() and I want FOO().  Ditto for if I do
> save my spreadsheet from an editor that has this function but then it is
> loaded my someone who doesn't have it.

Well, the thing is, the only solution to this would be requiring all
spreadsheets to implement all possible functions, and at the same
time, prohibiting them from implementing anything more. Which,
obviously, is not a good idea.

I personally like this LOGICAL_1, ... approach, it makes it relatively
easy to check for level of compatibility, and allows incremental
updating to be more and more compatible with the spec - for example, I
can have all Level 1 functions fully complaint, and most higher ups
present, but occasionaly giving different results for whatever reason.

And, yeah, if agreeing on levels/groups is a problem (although I don't
see why), let's just move on to defining each function and worry about
groups later on.

/ Tomas