Jody Goldberg wrote:
There's an important distinction to be made between errors of
omission and commission. While it's true that we are unlikely to
make any standard 100% accurate, even for a particular version of
MS Excel. It seems reasonable that any errors would be omissions,
corner cases that we did not think of. In which case an error
is an error in the spec and should be corrected. Implementors would
then need to decide how to handle the change, potentially renaming
the old implementation to OOO_func and adding a map in import.
However, I'd bet that if we didn't think of something for the
standard we will have missed it in the implementation too. In which
case there is no significant backwards compatibility issue and the
change can be done in situ.
If both the standard and our implementation say something different from
what Excel does, then a user has every right to rely on that behavior,
so the compatibility issue is certainly there if both are later adapted
to match Excel.
Calling it a standard also invites others to implement the described
behavior, too, making it even more toublesome to change things.
Maybe I'm too theoretical about the term "standard", but anyway there
does seem to be some uncertainty about the goals of the whole
OpenFormula effort.
Niklas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
