Hi David,
On Friday, 2007-02-23 13:14:14 -0500, David A. Wheeler wrote:
> Eike Rathke:
> > I still don't see how that's meant. Maybe a misunderstanding from mixing
> > absolute and simple weeks. From my understanding the definitions are:
> >
> > 1. Absolute week, as used by US military:
> > The first 7 days of a year are the first week, regardless of the
> > day-of-week the year started with, days 8-14 are the second week, and
> > so on. This would be covered with a 2nd argument of 0.
>
> Yes, I completely agree with that entire description, both cases. I was trying to restate case 1 as a definition; I _believe_ that case 1 is described by this relationship:
> > > WEEKNUM(x;0) == WEEKNUM(x; WEEKDAY(DATE(1;1;YEAR(x)))
> if "case 1" and the relationship aren't the same, I don't know why (it'd be worth clarifying if they ARE different, that might reveal something important).
They are dfferent simply because WEEKDAY(DATE(YEAR(x);1;1)) returns
a number between 1 and 7.
Eike
--
Automatic string conversions considered dangerous. They are the GOTO statements
of spreadsheets. --Robert Weir on the OpenDocument formula subcommittee's list.
