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] Expression Calculation: expression = formula?

On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 14:50 -0500, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 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.

We should keep in mind that we are still allowing non-OpenFormula

In that context it will make a significant difference whether we have an
'=' that is part of the formula syntax or not. For example if I have a
formula syntax with namespace "myf" and all my formulas start with :
then currently we would have myf::now[] versus myf:=:now[] if we change

of course this forced recalculation mode '==' still makes my head spin:
I don't see how that could be part of a formula language (it seems to be
very much spreadsheet specific) but this marker follows the namespace
spec so could easily collide with the formula syntax.

Andreas J. Guelzow
Concordia University College of Alberta

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