[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

*Subject*: **Re: [office-formula] A-functions**

*From*:**"Tomas Mecir" <mecirt@gmail.com>***To*: office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org*Date*: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 11:05:03 +0200

On 9/8/06, David A. Wheeler <dwheeler@dwheeler.com> wrote: > I think it would be DISASTROUS to spec something we KNOW > is not true, and will NEVER become true. Better to make it > implementation-defined... which is in fact what we do. Hmm. Basically, you are suggesting to write in the spec something like: "Implement this function how you want" ? I'm not sure if we'll manage total compatibility that way, but ah well, seems like there isn't any better option. Sooo. Bot A and non-A treat numbers as numbers. If the implementation doesn't have distinct logicals, then logicals always get treated the same as numbers. If the implementation supports logicals, A version treats them as 1 and 0, non-A is implementation specific. As for strings, the behaviour is implementation-specific. A-version is never allowed to ignore it, it must somehow convert the string to a number - either parse the number, or just use 0. Non-A version can either convert the string to a number, or ignore the string entirely. All these functions must behave in the same way for one implementation - ie., if SUM treats logical/strings in some way, COUNT, AVERAGE, ..., all must treat them the same. Are the rules regarding these functions good enough now ? :) Also, where to write them ? I think it'd be bst to write these in some section somewhere, and in each related function, point the reader to that section, so that we don't have to copy-paste these rules 20 times. / Tomas

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [office-formula] A-functions***From:*"David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>

**References**:**A-functions***From:*"Tomas Mecir" <mecirt@gmail.com>

**Re: [office-formula] A-functions***From:*"David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>

**Re: [office-formula] A-functions***From:*"Tomas Mecir" <mecirt@gmail.com>

**Re: [office-formula] A-functions***From:*"David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>

**Re: [office-formula] A-functions***From:*"Tomas Mecir" <mecirt@gmail.com>

**Re: [office-formula] A-functions***From:*"David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>

**Re: [office-formula] A-functions***From:*"Tomas Mecir" <mecirt@gmail.com>

**Re: [office-formula] A-functions***From:*"David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>

**Re: [office-formula] A-functions***From:*"Tomas Mecir" <mecirt@gmail.com>

**Re: [office-formula] A-functions***From:*"David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]