[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-formula] Our next adventure: Types and conversions
David A. Wheeler wrote:
> A. Logical is REQUIRED to be distinct from Number.
> Inconsistent with OOo, Lotus 1-2-3, & many others.
> B. Logical is REQUIRED to be the same as Number:
> Inconsistent with Excel, Gnumeric.
> C. "Logical" used as a notional type (so that we can easily
> identify functions that take/return logicals), but we
> explicitly permit EITHER of the above.
> I recommend "C". If implementations can co-exist
> with this variance, I think we can too.
I would be happy with either A or C. I would not be happy with B. A lot
of standard programming languages do C or something like it.
> Next up: how do they interact? In particular: if a function
> expects a Number but gets a Text value, then what?
> A. Text auto-converted to Number. Excel & Gnumeric
> B. Text converted to 0. Lotus 1-2-3 does this.
> C. Text converted to 0 if via reference, and auto-converted
> to number if in-line. OOo 2.0 does this.
> D. Text converted to error. Eike thinks this would be safest,
> E. Allow some set of the above. Spreadsheet users could
> add VALUE() calls where they wanted conversions.
I don't like A. I like B, D and E. If I were designing a spreadsheet for
myself I'd pick B or D but I think that compatibility with existing
products demands E. So my vote would be for E.
Cheers,
Daniel.
--
/\/`) http://opendocumentfellowship.org
/\/_/
/\/_/ ...and starting today, all passwords must contain
\/_/ letters, numbers, doodles, sign language and
/ squirrel noises.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]