Hi Andreas,
On Thursday, 2007-01-25 13:33:20 -0700, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
> I don't think a smallest common denominator system really improves
> interoperability. I think we should define as many basis numbers as
> reasonable and then define the behaviour if a basis number is not
> implemented. This may encourage programs to in fact support those basis
> numbers.
Defining basis numbers in advance may lead to the situation where Excel
defines a new basis number in the same range and ODF applications can't
cope with it. There is no guarantee that this won't happen.
> The alternative would be that spreadsheets have to add their own
> functions to support those other systems.
I'd prefer to not add new functionality to already existing functions.
Is there really a need to support other systems not covered yet, and
which are they?
Eike
--
Automatic string conversions considered dangerous. They are the GOTO statements
of spreadsheets. --Robert Weir on the OpenDocument formula subcommittee's list.
