[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Question on implementation-defined - part 4 - formulas
Hi Patrick,I suggest to use a consistent structure. In section 6.13.16 Conversion to TimeParam, item Logical you find:
Logical, the result is implementation-defined, either a Number or Error Such structure can be used here too:If X is an empty string, the result is implementation-defined, either 0 or an Error.
Kind regards Regina Patrick Durusau schrieb am 31-Oct-20 um 19:12:
Greetings! I'm compiling a spreadsheet of all instances of implementation-defined/dependent and ran into an odd case in part 4: 6.19.4 BIN2DEC ... If any digits are 2 through 9, an evaluator shall return an Error. It is implementation-defined what happens if an evaluator is given an empty string; evaluators may return an Error or 0 in such cases. ***** Notice that we say "implementation-defined," but then immediately follow with: *may* return an Error or 0 in such cases. If we mean, "implemention-defined," isn't that all we should say and stop? Or, are we using "implementation-defined" in a common sense and then specifying with "may," the possible options to return? This happens more than once in part 4. Before I create a lot of needless JIRA issues, wanted to check with the TC. Thanks! Hope everyone is having a great weekend! Patrick
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]