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

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

Andreas J Guelzow <aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca> wrote on 02/22/2009 
03:52:31 AM:

> 
> 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!
> 
> Andreas
> 


In general this is true, the conversion is implementation defined. 
However, in practice dates in ISO format YYYY-MM-DD are unambiguous and I 
think all implementations interpret that form consistently.  We should 
probably make this an explicit requirement, that dates in this format are 
converted according to ISO 8601.   Or does anyone know of an 
implementation that does not do this correctly?  If that is a problem we 
would need to put in DATE(YYYY,MM,DD) calls, or the explicit integer 
serial number.

-Rob