Re: [office-formula] Constraints and infix ^

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Andreas,

 From below:

> I think we may in fact be agreeing: the draft as currently written
> allows virtually arbitrary return values if the constraints are not
> satisfied. It seems that neither you nor I think that that is a good
> idea.
+1! Yes!

Sorry, language can be really clumsy.

I fear the same result obtains for other functions as well.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick


Andreas J Guelzow wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
>
> On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 13:40 -0500, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>   
>> Andreas J Guelzow wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>     
>>>> According to your reading, we have prohibited 0^0 and then in a 
>>>> following paragraph mandated it but don't define the result.
>>>>
>>>> If it is prohibited, there is no valid result. (full stop)
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> There has to be a result. 
>>>
>>> If a user uses 0^0 some value _must_ be returned. 
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> Note that I said "no valid result." What result it should return is up 
>> to the formula standard to define.
>>     
>
> I guess we are just disagreeing on language. To me, an "error" is a
> valid result.
>
>   
>>> Since it violates the constraint imho it should be an Error. I guess the
>>> draft wants to allow other values (namely 0 or 1 as continuous
>>> continuations of related functions) but prohibit anything else.
>>>
>>> Personally I think it should always return an error.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> OK, but the draft also says (6.1, under constraints):
>>
>>     
>>>    *
>>>
>>>       If a constraint is not met, the function/operator *should*
>>>       return an Error unless otherwise noted.
>>>
>>>       
>> That makes it appear (whether intended or not) that 
>> applications/implementations when executing a function/operator defined 
>> by OpenFormula can violate any constraint and not return an error. 
>> Unless the definition of a function/operator gives a specific 
>> instruction on what to do in the case of a constraint violation.
>>
>> That seems like an odd result. As I say, that is probably a mis-reading 
>> but it is one allowed by the text as written.
>>     
>
> I think we may in fact be agreeing: the draft as currently written
> allows virtually arbitrary return values if the constraints are not
> satisfied. It seems that neither you nor I think that that is a good
> idea.
>
> Note that for this little expression 0^0 we currently have the following
> return values in:
>
> Gnumeric 1.9.4 and earlier    #NUM!   (so it returns an error)
> Openoffice3                   1       (well...)
> Kspread 1.6.3                 1       (well...)
>
> Andreas
>   

-- 
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)