[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Question on implementation-defined - part 4 - formulas
Greetings! I'm compiling a spreadsheet of all instances of implementation-defined/dependent and ran into an odd case in part 4: 6.19.4 BIN2DEC ... If any digits are 2 through 9, an evaluator shall return an Error. It is implementation-defined what happens if an evaluator is given an empty string; evaluators may return an Error or 0 in such cases. ***** Notice that we say "implementation-defined," but then immediately follow with: *may* return an Error or 0 in such cases. If we mean, "implemention-defined," isn't that all we should say and stop? Or, are we using "implementation-defined" in a common sense and then specifying with "may," the possible options to return? This happens more than once in part 4. Before I create a lot of needless JIRA issues, wanted to check with the TC. Thanks! Hope everyone is having a great weekend! Patrick -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage: http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]