[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Forced Recalculation?
Greetings! Is it fair to say that all of current section 2.5 is non-normative? It doesn't appear to specify any required behavior and consists entirely of observations about behavior of current evaluators of OpenFormula expressions. Yes? But that leads me to: 4.2 Basic Expressions where we say: > If a formula is marked as a "forced recalculation" formula, then it > *should* be recalculated whenever one of its predecessors it depends > on changes. > Doesn't seem much like a "forced recalculation" if it is only a *should* does it? Not to mention that the apparently non-normative language in 2.5 contradicts itself: "Functions that are /always/ recalculated whenever a recalculation occurs are termed /volatile/ functions. Functions that are often volatile functions...." Well, but either a function is "always" recalculated or it is "often volatile...." but surely it can't be both. It may take some doing but my suggestion is that we determine which functions *shall* to use the standards terminology recalculate when changed. Moreover, we need to decide if formulas, when marked as "forced recalculation" are a "should" or "shall" recalculate. Separate case from functions. Hope everyone is having a great weekend! Patrick -- Patrick Durusau email@example.com Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)