Re: [office-formula] EOMONTH Function Test Cases (Section 6.9.8)

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

Andreas J Guelzow wrote:
> how could this be? According to the draft, the conversion of
> "2006-01-05" into a date is implementation defined, so that date could
> be May 1st!

Where do you see that?  If it says that, it's a mistake.

The form YYYY-MM-DD is intended to be completely unambiguous; that 
format is _ALWAYS_ ISO format.  Yes, we have the problem that MM/DD/YY 
and DD/MM/YY are both in use, but that's not the format in view here. 
ISO format was used for in the test cases specifically because it's NOT 
ambiguous.

--- David A. Wheeler