Re: [office-formula] 3.1 Expression calculation

["David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>]

robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Same thing, different words.  But I want us to avoid the phrase "user 
> visible" since that may trick the reader into think that we're talking 
> about user interface, which we are not.  Better would be "observable 
> behavior" or something similar.

I like that.  I think you and Patrick have the same intent, and now 
we're just struggling to express it clearly.

>>> For example, ISO C++ puts it like this:
>>>
>>> "This International Standard places no requirement on the structure of
>>> conforming implementations. In particular, they need
>>> not copy or emulate the structure of the abstract machine. Rather, 
>>> conforming implementations are required to emulate
>>> (only) the observable behavior of the abstract machine as explained 
>>> below".
>>>
>>> Maybe that language could be adopted? 

Yes, I think something like that language would make sense.

There are a couple of cases where stuff must be calculated, even though 
you might THINK they don't need to be calculated. E.G.:
  0*[.A1]
Isn't always 0; the referenced cell might contain an error.
But that doesn't invalidate this approach.

--- David A. Wheeler