> If we want to merely label these as packages, such as "financial",
> "engineering", 'logical", etc., and give a basic "intrinsic" or "core" set
> that is universal, then I'm fine with that. But I'd rather not have us
> imply a score or graded level of support or similar marketing statement
> via an ordinal ranking of functions or packages.
Ah! So your objection is primarily to an ordinal numbering implying "betterness"?
Okay, that's fair enough, instead of numbers, we can create larger
groupings with names.
The purpose of this spec is to allow users to intechange recalculated
formulas, and have a reason to believe that the formulas will actually
recalculate elsewhere. A long list of "functions used" will just put people
to sleep... no one wants to slog through that. A simple way to say
"this is approximately what I need" is, in my mind, important for the
typical user.
I don't know what the names should be. Any suggestions? My try:
1 => small
2 => medium
3 => large
4 => very_large
Other tries welcome (e.g., core, base, large, advanced).
We still need leveling "inside" a single function, because some functions have
both a minimal capability (e.g., with limited domain or lack support of certain options),
vs. a larger capability, and I'd expect that to be captured here too.
--- David A. Wheeler
