[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office-formula] Year 1900 bug
1. The reason it is called a bug is that the dominant implementation (going back to at least Lotus 1-2-3) allows 1900-02-29 to be an admissable date. 2. Another way of looking at it is that there is the presumption that ordinal days, given an origin date, are in one-to-one correspondence with calendar dates. That is, if two dates are adjacent in the calendar progression of dates, the difference between their corresponding ordinal-day numbers will be 1. The bug can be seen as something that violates that expectation. As you demonstrated, there are ways for setting the origin date and calendar mapping so that (1) doesn't happen, at the cost of (2) not holding. As Rob points out, we should not be talking about bugs in the OpenFormula specification. We do need to allow some precise way to address ordinal-day calendar correspondences that accomodate the present reality. -----Original Message----- From: Andreas J. Guelzow [mailto:aguelzow@pyrshep.ca] Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 22:34 To: office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [office-formula] Year 1900 bug On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 15:16 -0800, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Your proposed wording is certainly an improvement. I am not sure about that. But perhaps I don't even understand what hte "Year 1900 bug" is all about, since we do not specify the exact serial numbers anyways. [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]