Re: [office-formula] Functions that need to be identified as TBD

["David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>]

I said:
> >    The "_OOO" naming convention is lousy;

Andreas J. Guelzow:
> I agree that it is lousy. I think we should choose the semantics that
> make more sense to the regular one. If it is not the EL semantics we may
> want to implement Excel's version as LEGACY...
> 
> If we think OOo's is just weird we should probably use another prefix
> COMPATIBILITY... or so hoping that over the long term the more sensible
> semantics takes over. 

It's hard to have a good group decision UNTIL their different semantics
are well-understood, though, so we need to document the semantics first.
So, how do we want to document them to start with?
1. Document as separate functions, with OOo semantics with "_OOO" suffix.
2. Document as separate functions, with OOo semantics with "_OOO" suffix,
    Excel semantics as "_XL" suffix
3. Document as separate functions, with _ADD suffix (possibly change to _XL?).
4. Put in a "TODO" warning for these functions that there are
    semantic differences so important that OOo felt compelled
   re-implement Excel's semantics as well as their own,
   until that decision was made.
   Note: This would work fine elsewhere, but won't work for CONVERT;
   these are completely different functions that unfortunately share the same name.

Once their semantics are fully defined, we'll at least know what we're
deciding on.

--- David A. Wheeler