RE: [office-formula] Formula Processing Model

Rob, I think you're right about this.

1. We probably need to change the title of Part 2 and de-emphasize
"recalculation" in Part 2.

2. I do think that we should figure out all of these processing model
dependencies in terms of abstracted interdependencies in order to offer a
coherent perspective.  It seems to me that this is best done as part of the
work on OpenFormula, for now.  It should then be refactored so that those
provisions that are the responsibility of Part 1 are addressed there.  What
remains in Part 2 is what OpenFormula is responsible for.  I can also
foresee enough of the abstracted context being described in Part 2 so that a
hosting of OpenFormula can connect the dots and so that implementers
understand what the interdependencies are. 

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From:  [mailto:] 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-formula/201001/msg00060.html
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 11:09
To: 
Subject: RE: [office-formula] Formula Processing Model

I think you need to address some of these issues, but in Part 1.  As far 
as Part 2 goes, I'm not sure you need to say anything about dependencies 
or calculation chains.  As far as Part 2 is concerned a reference like 
[.A1] is merely an address can dereference to get a value.  The fact that 
deferencing that value may trigger all sorts of recalculations elsewhere 
in the spreadsheet is the nature of the spreadsheet (Part 1), but it is 
not intrinsic to the evaluation of a formula (Part 2);.

-Rob

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <> wrote on 01/22/2010 
01:21:12 PM:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-formula/201001/msg00059.html

> 
> RE: [office-formula] Formula Processing Model
> 
> I happen to believe that we do need a processing model for a number of
> reasons.  One of them has to do with interdependent formulas in a
> (re-)calculation and the ways that data not provided directly in the 
formula
> itself is acquired.  One might not be able to answer all of the 
questions,
> but a processing model of some sort is needed so one can tell at least 
what
> the questions are and which ones are not being answered (or, preferably. 
are
> explicitly and identifiably implementation-defined/-dependent).
> 
[ ... ]