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

[Andreas J Guelzow <aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca>]

On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 11:22 -0500, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 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!

> 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.

No question about that. On the other hand test cases or examples should
not depend on what implementations happen to do unless the standard
mandates it.

>   We should 
> probably make this an explicit requirement, that dates in this format are 
> converted according to ISO 8601. 

We surely should  make this explicit _or_ avoid using it in any
testcases.

>   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.

Since DATEVALUE is more likely to have issues than DATE we should
probably write testcases with DATE unless we want to test DATEVALUE or
implicit conversion.

Andreas

-- 
Andreas J. Guelzow
Concordia University College of Alberta