Hi Tomas,
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:37:32 +0100, Tomas Mecir wrote:
> > I think all spreadsheet applications handle this the same: SUM, COUNT,
> > AVERAGE, and all the like, get passed what OpenFormula called
> > a NumberSequence. This by definition ignores string cell content,
>
> They currently do, yeah. So the question is - do we want it to be like
> that ?
Yes.
> And do we even have a better solution ?
No.
> I realise that I may be playing a devil's advocate here a bit :)
What for? Those functions work on numbers, text isn't a number. I wish
all function parameters / operands to numeric operators would behave
like that..
> > We'd then end up with a definition of "how does it the one application
> > of the big player". Which is not our goal, though will be congruent in
> > many but not all cases.
>
> Isn't this what OpenFormula has been doing so far ? With tests being
> adjusted for OOo to pass them and all ...
Well, thanks for the flowers, but with the big player I wasn't referring
to OOo ;-)
> > > I think this introduces the problem of our goal: shall we design a
> > > spec based on real spreadsheets, or also put in new/changed things, if
> > > we feel that it makes sense ?
> >
> > Based on real applications, with changes only when and where necessary
> > for clear benefits.
>
> Well, those are the points that I'm trying to raise - where the
> current implementations could be considered ... a bit dirty.
I don't consider ignoring text in a range to be SUM'ed dirty. Not at
all.
> Everyone agrees with the complex number problem. Then we have datatype
> conversion, and I think that's about all there is to difficult
> problems.
You're oversimplifying things. We have many areas where different
applications currently do not agree.
Eike
