office-formula message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-formula] Implementation-defined, Unspecified, and Undefinedbehaviors in OpenFormula
- From: "David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>
- To: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
- Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:04:57 -0400
robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> The language on precision is:
>
> "This specification does not, by itself, specify a numerical
> implementation model,....
> I think I would call this "implementation-defined" and we probably want to
> say that explicitly in cases like this.
Okay, that's a good idea.
Can I talk you into proposing some alternative text?
--- David A. Wheeler
- References:
- Implementation-defined, Unspecified, and Undefined behaviors in OpenFormula
- From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
- Re: [office-formula] Implementation-defined, Unspecified, and Undefinedbehaviors in OpenFormula
- From: "David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>
- Re: [office-formula] Implementation-defined, Unspecified, and Undefinedbehaviorsin OpenFormula
- From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
- RE: [office-formula] Implementation-defined, Unspecified, and Undefined behaviors in OpenFormula
- From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
- RE: [office-formula] Implementation-defined, Unspecified, and Undefinedbehaviors in OpenFormula
- From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]