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

*Subject*: **RE: [office-formula] Expression Calculation: expression = formula?**

*From*:**robert_weir@us.ibm.com***To*: "office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org" <office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org>*Date*: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:50:10 -0500

So I'm wondering if it would be cleaner to instead say: In Part 1, where we define table:formula as: NamespacePrefix':='('=')?Expression Where Expression is defined by Part 2, OpenFormula. (Allows 1 or 2 = signs, since the 2nd one would indicate forced recalc) Then in Part 2, simply define Expression. In other words, I think the equals sign is just how an OpenFormula expression is embedded in a spreadsheet, but Part 2 doesn't really need to say anything about it. It is not a big deal either way, but I have a slight preference for factoring out the spreadsheet-specific portion of the syntax into Part 1. That way the remaining OpenFormula syntax can be more easily reused in other contexts. -Rob "Andreas J. Guelzow" <aguelzow@pyrshep.ca> wrote on 01/26/2010 02:06:16 PM: > From: > > "Andreas J. Guelzow" <aguelzow@pyrshep.ca> > > To: > > office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org > > Date: > > 01/26/2010 02:09 PM > > Subject: > > RE: [office-formula] Expression Calculation: expression = formula? > > On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 13:04 -0500, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote: > > Question: is the '=' essential for OpenFormula? In other words, is is > > used for all uses of formulas? Or is it something specific to the > > table:formula attribute in Part 1? > > It seems to me that the formulation in part assumes that formulas start > with '=': > > For example in 19.644: > The attribute value should begin with a namespace prefix followed by > ":" (COLON, U+003A), followed by the text of the formula. > > And in 19.470: > "formula is a formula (see 19.644) without the equals ?=? (EQUALS SIGN, > U+003D) at the beginning." > > IN the first example the '=' must be part of the formula otherwise it > would not appear. In the second case we are omitting a part of the > formula. This would not be necessary to say if we did not inclde the '=' > as part of the formula. > > Andreas > > > > -- > Andreas J. Guelzow <aguelzow@pyrshep.ca> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >

**Follow-Ups**:**RE: [office-formula] Expression Calculation: expression = formula?***From:*Andreas J Guelzow <aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca>

**References**:**Expression Calculation: expression = formula?***From:*Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>

**Re: [office-formula] Expression Calculation: expression = formula?***From:*robert_weir@us.ibm.com

**Re: [office-formula] Expression Calculation: expression = formula?***From:*Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>

**RE: [office-formula] Expression Calculation: expression = formula?***From:*"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>

**RE: [office-formula] Expression Calculation: expression = formula?***From:*robert_weir@us.ibm.com

**RE: [office-formula] Expression Calculation: expression = formula?***From:*"Andreas J. Guelzow" <aguelzow@pyrshep.ca>

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