"David A. Wheeler" <>
wrote on 07/16/2006 10:02:41 PM:
> Anyway, the case as you describe won't happen. Any one application
> better have a consistent mapping, and in practice, in English it'll
generally
> be one-to-one. But let's go with your example. In my app,
my "AND"
> maps to OF "AND_SHORT". Thus, my app will have another
function, e.g.,
> "AND_NOSHORT". I load in your sheet, and see lots
of AND_NOSHORTs,
> write it back, and you see "AND" as usual.
>
.
.
.
>
> > I guess I just haven't bought into the logic of forcing all compliant
ODF
> > editors to support a new function so a single implementation
can avoid
> > lining up with the others.
>
> Huh? Don't think we're doing that.
>
So back to my example. If spreadsheet A has
function AND() in the UI and writes it out as AND_SHORT() to match their
behavior, then aren't we forcing spreadsheet B, which does the "normal"
non-shortcircuit logic, to implement AND_SHORT()? I don't see how
this is avoided if documents are to be exchanged between A and B?
-Rob
