OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office-formula message

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

Subject: RE: [office-formula] BITAND

Andreas J Guelzow <aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca> wrote on 12/10/2009 
02:16:56 PM:

> Dennis,
> could you explain to me what you see as the difference between the
> following two statements (in the context of the OpenFormula
> specification):
> 1) To comply with this specification, an implementation *shall* support
> parameters of at least 48 bits.
> 2) An implementation *shall* support parameters of at least 48 bits.

Some observations:

First, we should never be using the term 'comply' in the standard. 
Although you'll see it used loosely even if some standards settings, the 
general rule is you comply with legal requirements, such as to comply with 
a regulation.  And you 'conform' to voluntary standards.  But this may be 
moot, since as Andreas observed it is redundant.  I suppose it could be 
worse.  We could say, "This specification defines the requirement that to 
comply with this specification an implementation shall...." ;-)

Second, we agreed, at least in principle, on the Tuesday call to have two 
conformance targets:

1) An OpenFormula 'formula' or 'expression'
2) An OpenFormula 'evalautor' or 'processor'

One expresses the static/syntactic constraints and the other the runtime 

So whenever we state a conformance requirement we need to make sure it is 
clear what target it pertains to.  This might be obvious from context in 
many cases.  But in some cases we may need to be explicit.  In this case I 
think it is obvious from context that this is a processor constraint.  But 
if we want to make it explicit, we certainly could.

In any case, it is odd to require 48 bit parameters in BITAND when we 
don't have any such requirement for the Number type in general. Is there 
some special reason why it would be a conformance requirement to support 
48 bit params for BITAND, when operator '+' can be conformant with support 
for only 32-bit arguments?


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