That would work just fine. I'm happy to see that is already there.
The Java naming convention will work, so long as .-separated name segments
are not confused with anything else.
I missed this in my last look at the draft.
Is there a convention for finding documentation on such extensions based on
the name (thinking of JavaDoc equivalents) or is that something that would
be a developed practice outside of the OpenFormula specification?
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Andreas J. Guelzow [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 13:17
To:
Cc: ;
Subject: RE: [office-formula] OFFICE-2164: EASTERSUNDAY
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 12:09 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Perhaps this is an occasion for polishing-up a function-extension
mechanism
> that provides for unambiguous identification of [user-installed]
third-party
> supplemental-function implementations.
What is wrong with the existing mechanism described in the OpenFormula
draft of defining functions by an appropriate prefix, e.g.
ORG.GNUMERIC.GOODFRIDAY ?
Andreas
>
--
Andreas J. Guelzow, PhD, FTICA
Mathematical & Computing Sciences
Concordia University College of Alberta
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
