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

*Subject*: **Re: [office-formula] Constraints and infix ^**

*From*:**"David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>***To*: Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>*Date*: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:05:11 -0500

Patrick Durusau wrote: > Err, if we say "implementation defined" isn't there a full stop at the > end of that sentence? No. Why would that be so? > Otherwise, we are contradicting ourselves by then proceeding to define it. > > Yes? No, I don't think so. "Implementation-defined" means that the implementation is free to pick from a set of possibilities, as long as that selection meets the other requirements of the spec. If the spec limits the set of permissible returns, then it must be one of those possible returns. > I really think Rob has the better position to just say "implementation > defined" and then to let it alone. That may very well be true! In which case, let's argue about whether it's better to say "implementation defined, anything at all allowed" or "implementation defined, but must be one of the following {list here}". Where _possible_, I believe we should try to gain agreement on semantics to the extent we can. Particularly for such a basic operator as "^". In the case of 0^0, I think there are only 3 plausible responses: 1, an Error, or 0. I think we can agree that "" is NOT acceptable, yet if we leave it "implementation-defined" without further limitation, then "" is a permissible result. There are many reasons to try to _limit_ the amount variation in an "implementation-defined" result, if we can. For example, it's much easier to create portable spreadsheets if we know that only one of a few possibilities can occur. If 0^0 could produce a text value containing a weather forecast, it'll be harder to create portable spreadsheets :-). --- David A. Wheeler

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [office-formula] Constraints and infix ^***From:*robert_weir@us.ibm.com

**Re: [office-formula] Constraints and infix ^***From:*Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>

**References**:**Constraints and infix ^***From:*Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>

**Re: [office-formula] Constraints and infix ^***From:*Andreas J Guelzow <aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca>

**Re: [office-formula] Constraints and infix ^***From:*Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>

**Re: [office-formula] Constraints and infix ^***From:*Andreas J Guelzow <aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca>

**Re: [office-formula] Constraints and infix ^***From:*Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>

**Re: [office-formula] Constraints and infix ^***From:*"David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>

**Re: [office-formula] Constraints and infix ^***From:*robert_weir@us.ibm.com

**Re: [office-formula] Constraints and infix ^***From:*"David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>

**Re: [office-formula] Constraints and infix ^***From:*Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>

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