[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*: "office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org" <office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org>*Date*: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:05:21 -0500

Patrick Durusau wrote: > 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? I would say: "no". Which suggests that we need to define what the term "implementation-defined" means in the document. I'm with Rob Weir on this one; Rob says: > 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. I would say that the result of calculating 0^0 is implementation-defined, but must be one of short list of values (1 or an Error, at least). Obviously, this means that a spreadsheet that uses 0^0 may produce different values on different spreadsheets. Such variation is undesirable, but it's better to document and limit that variation, as compared to requiring a specific result that we can't get agreement on. In particular, a spreadsheet document creator can work around this, once they know that it's an issue. Thankfully, there are lots of spreadsheets that don't need to compute 0^0 :-). --- David A. Wheeler

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

**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>

**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:*Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>

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