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

*Subject*: **Re: [office-formula] List of functions in OpenFormula, dealingwith LEGACY.***

*From*:**"David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>***To*: office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org*Date*: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:33:46 -0400 (EDT)

> > LEGACY.NORMSDIST => NORMSDIST > > where NORMSDIST(x) = NORMDIST(x;0;1;TRUE()) > > since this is also well-defined and useful > > I disagree here. In fact I could see much more reason for dropping > LEGACY.NORMSDIST completely rather than turning it into a non-legacy > function. After the above change with respect to the default values of > NORMDIST, > > NORMSDIST(x) = NORMDIST(x) > > As a consequence there is no reason why, in the file format, we would > distinguish between NORMSDIST and NORMDIST. While NORMSDIST would could > exist in some legacy MS Excel files, when the file is converted to > openformula format NORMSDIST could (should) just be translated into > NORMDIST. > > It really does not make sense to have two versions of the same function, > even if one of them can be called with additional arguments. Well... I guess the issue here is being able to restore _exactly_ what was entered into the application, without change. In some sense we already do this; "%" is functionally equivalent to "/ 100", but no one wants to enter "5%" and load back "5/100". > > Rename: > > LEGACY.CHIDIST => CHISQDISTRIGHT > > since this is well-defined and useful (no need to eliminate) > > Since CHISQDISTRIGHT is just (1 - CHISQDIST(...;TRUE())) I would > question whether it is indeed useful, but that probably lies in the eyes > of the beholder. > Having said that, if we want to accept this as a non-legacy function, I > would think that we should similarly have right tail functions for all > other DIST functions. I don't think it makes sense for a standard to > treat one distribution special in this regard. (IN fact if we wanted to > treat one special then it should be the normal distribution rather than > the chisquare distribution.) Are you hard over on this? If so, then I think we should add *RIGHT functions for all the distributions. There aren't that many distributions, and this is trivial to implement. So it's a bonus for users, and no big deal for implementors. > > LEGACY.CHITEST unchanged; maybe we can get more info on it. > > Without further info what it should be doing, at best we can emulate > Excel or Gnumeric (which differ in their implementation) or OO (I don't > know what that is doing). SO this is a clear case of a legacy function. Well, let's see what Doug can find. This could be a case of something that is sensible once all the information is in. --- David A. Wheeler

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [office-formula] List of functions in OpenFormula, dealingwith LEGACY.****From:*Eike Rathke <erack@sun.com>

**References**:**List of functions in OpenFormula, dealing with LEGACY.****From:*"David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>

**Re: [office-formula] List of functions in OpenFormula, dealingwith LEGACY.****From:*Andreas J Guelzow <aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca>

**Re: [office-formula] List of functions in OpenFormula, dealingwith LEGACY.****From:*"David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>

**Re: [office-formula] List of functions in OpenFormula, dealingwith LEGACY.****From:*Andreas J Guelzow <aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca>

**Re: [office-formula] List of functions in OpenFormula, dealingwith LEGACY.****From:*"David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>

**Re: [office-formula] List of functions in OpenFormula, dealingwith LEGACY.****From:*"David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>

**Re: [office-formula] List of functions in OpenFormula, dealingwith LEGACY.****From:*"Andreas J. Guelzow" <aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca>

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