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

*Subject*: **Re: [office-formula] 0^0 in OpenFormula and OOXML**

*From*:**Andreas J Guelzow <aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca>***To*: office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org*Date*: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:41:28 -0700

On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 15:11 -0500, Patrick Durusau wrote: > Greetings! > > While on the road I have started compiling a rough comparison of > OpenFormula and OOXML operator and functions definitions. > > It didn't take long to reach "^" and we report in the notes in > OpenFormula that Excel returns #NUM!, for 0^0. > which may well still be true, I > don't have it on my laptop, but I was interested to find that OOXML says > in 18.17.7.113 EXP, in its examples that EXP (0) results in 1. EXP(0) has absolutely nothing to do with 0^0. Surely EXP(0) is 1 in any self-respecting spreadsheet. > > And: "However, if x is too large for the result to be representable, > #NUM! is returned." > > So, I would not think that "0^0" would violate that rule. ??? I am really not sure what you are saying!? Andreas > > I did find 18.17.7.255 POWER ( x, y ) which does say that if: > > "x is zero and y is less than or equal to zero, #DIV/0! is returned." > > (Note the ambiguous use of "whole number" in the preceding list item: > "The value of x is negative and y is not a whole number, #NUM! is > returned." Hard to say if that includes or excludes 0.) > > Even though our note will be hidden, its best not to have > misapprehensions about what others have in fact said. > > In this particular case, it appears to me that OOXML has: > > Failed to define the result for the case of 0^0 for the exponent > operator ^ other than perhaps by implication from 18.17.7.255 POWER but > then that would contradict the definition of ^ (18.17.7.113 EXP) which > clearly allows 0 as both components. (It wasn't just the example that > was the tip off. If you run the regex to ground you find that 0 is > accepted in both positions.) > > On the other hand, OpenFormula has failed to account for the result > "#DIV/0!" That is assuming OpenFormula should be recording the current > results of spreadsheet behavior as a "standard" in a rather loose sense > of the word. > > And, note that OpenFormula under 6.15.45 Power, fails to define the > result in the case of POWER ( 0; 0). > > Interesting that the two standards fail to make the same definition but > at opposite locations and leave it only implied to implementers, > assuming they have read closely enough to realize there is an issue. > > Hope everyone is having a great day! > > Patrick > > PS: It seems to me that we need to answer the question of if and where > OpenFormula differs from OOXML and why? We can either answer that now or > we can wait for it to come up upon submission of ODF 1.2 to ISO. From an > editor's point of view I would prefer now. -- Andreas J. Guelzow Concordia University College of Alberta

**References**:**0^0 in OpenFormula and OOXML***From:*Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>

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