[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-formula] period
Andreas, Andreas J Guelzow wrote: > Hi Patrick, > > On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 20:38 -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote: > > >> Sorry if that was obscure. My question was the absence of a single >> definition of "period" to mean "time period" unless further defined for >> a particular function. >> >> Is that clearer? >> >> > > Yes this is much clearer. > > But I don't think it is a good idea: I cannot imagine any (financial) > function in which the definition of "period" as "time period" would be > sufficient. So I think that if we have any function in which we fail to > define that argument we should fix those definitions. Typically there > are several time periods associated with any situation that a general > definitions would not suffice. > > OK, I'll buy that. But that means that the general term "period" should be defined as a "time period" plus whatever specialization is required for a particular function. In other words, I agree with you that "time period" is insufficient but that means that definitions such as "period The period of interest" are fatally defective. It should be: "the time period of interest" (assuming interest is defined elsewhere). I am creating a list of definitions that use the same term, such a "period" on both sides of the definition. That is what drew my attention to it initially. Defining a term using the term is, err, problematic. Hope you are having a great day! Patrick -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]