OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office-formula message

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

Subject: Re: [office-formula] 6.3.7 Infix Operator "<>"

> Under Semantics we say:
> > Note that if either Left and Right are an error, the result is an 
> > error; this operator cannot be used to determine if two errors are the 
> > same kind of error.
> >
> Instead of None for constraints, shouldn't the possible values of Left 
> or Right exclude an error?
> Then if the general rule is violation of constraint is an error then we 
> can drop this sentence altogether.

This sentence does not, and is not intended, to
DEFINE the semantic. Instead, it clarifies
an implication of the semantics defined above.  That's why it
starts with the text "Note that....".

The reason this note was added was that users might
think it was okay to compare error values using <>, e.g.,
"NA() <> 1/0", which is NOT what <> is good for
(it would return an Error, not TRUE() or FALSE()).

Is it not clear that this text is a note?  I realize that you're
not big on explanatory text, but sometimes implications really
need to be clarified in the spec to make sure people don't do the wrong thing.

--- David A. Wheeler

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