[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-formula] Constraints and infix ^
Rob, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote: > "Implementation-defined" is not a term that we will see defined in ISO > drafting guidelines. We'll need to explicitly define it in our text what > it means. Certainly in other standards, like ISO C++ items that are > implementation-defined can also have additional restrictions specified in > the standard. > > It is perfectly legitimate to say "implementation defined" and also > specify additional restrictions. For example, ISO C++ says that the > length of a character is implementation-defined, but it must be at least > 8-bits long. > > Err, but doesn't that run afoul of your concerns for interoperability? That is in the ISO C++ example there is a floor for representing character of 8-bits but what happens if file was generated with an application that supported a 16-bit definition is passed to an application that only supports 8-bits? Besides, if the formula group wants a defined set of results, then the results aren't by any means "implementation defined," we are simply offering a choice to implementations. They cannot chose, for example, the weather report that David suggested. Yes? Hope you are having a great day! Patrick > -Rob > > > > From: > "David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com> > To: > Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> > Cc: > robert_weir@us.ibm.com, office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org > Date: > 01/20/2009 10:06 PM > Subject: > Re: [office-formula] Constraints and infix ^ > > > > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > > -- 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]