Re: [office-formula] Portability and conformance

[Eike Rathke <erack@sun.com>]

Hi Patrick,

On Monday, 2009-12-21 08:36:22 -0500, Patrick Durusau wrote:

>>> Just so I remember to capture it, under the various bit operators, 
>>> not  that there is a portability constraint but then under semantics, 
>>> an  implementation must support at least up to 48 bits. No mention of 
>>>  portability.
>>>     
>>
>> There are portable constraints 0 <= x < 2^48
>>
>>   
>>> (Yes, I will change "implementation" but this sounds like, looks 
>>> like,  walks like a constraint on evaluators and not on expressions.
>>>     
>>
>> It is a constraint of the expression to be portable, an evaluator shall
>> support at least 48 bits.
>>
>>   
> You mean that in order to support the portability of a certain class of  
> expressions, evaluators are constrained to support a minimal set of 
> values.

Yes, though instead of "constrained to support a minimal set" I'd say
"required to support a minimal set", I might be wrong but to me
constrained sounds like restricted.

  Eike

-- 
Automatic string conversions considered dangerous. They are the GOTO statements
of spreadsheets.  --Robert Weir on the OpenDocument formula subcommittee's list.

PGP signature