https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101134
--- Comment #4 from Wolfgang Jäger <j...@psilosoph.de> ---
(In reply to Aron Budea from comment #3)
> Created attachment 126823 [details]
> CONCAT vs. CONCATENATE
>
> Yes, this is the exact same report as 99625, except it includes CONCAT.
(Not quite exact. See below.)
> There are no specifications, as these functions were introduced to be
> compatible with Excel's new functions, see bug 97831.
Aiming at compatibility the first step should be thorough inspection of the
pattern to imitate and tests with it, making sure to not miss something of
relevance. Looking for a specification of the pattern may also be possible. The
second step is to mould the results into rather plain language and to derive
this way a specification for the imitation to be, regarding the changing
environment. (Already existing mandatory specifications MUST persist this
step.) Only the third step can then be the implementation of the new (imitated)
functionality.
These steps are urgently needed to be able to distinguish a bad implementation
from a misunderstanding concerning the pattern.
> I'd prefer to see minimal examples, like the one I'm attaching. ...
I so do - within limits. The mentioned example only covers the case of a
superfluous call to array evaluation. It demonstrates the bug, but not its
severity. After all there are cases where array evaluation is relevant for the
working of a formula. I tried to demonstrate such a case, much reduced again.
OK. I used 10 rows where 3 or 4 might have done. Sorry!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
Libreoffice-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
