Andreas J Guelzow wrote:
> > If we don't have a generic NUMBERTEXT function (and I follow your
> > argument of this being very difficult to specify) I don't think we
> > should have a BAHTTEXT function either. Virtually all arguments you make
> > also apply to a potential plethora of individual functions and I don't
> > see how Thai is in any way special.
>
Eike replied:
> BAHTTEXT exists in Excel and we try to be interoperable with Excel where
> reasonable. Which is the reason to be in for quite a few functions we
> otherwise would had dropped. I don't insist on having BAHTTEXT in ODFF,
> I'd also be fine without, OOo would store it as COM.MICROSOFT.BAHTTEXT
> then.
It wouldn't just be OOo, that'd be true for be any OpenFormula implementation.
> So, as BAHTTEXT seems to give unnecessary headaches, let's drop it.
I'm fine with that. Anyone against?
--- David A. Wheeler
