Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index


Hi Winfried,

On Friday, 2013-11-29 07:55:44 +0100, Winfried Donkers wrote:

What is the best way to proceed?
What follows is just a brainstorm, there may be quirks..
That looks like a long way to go (and IMHO we should include WEEKNUM/ISOWEEKNUM too, then).

Yes, of course, and FLOOR and maybe others that suffer from similar
incompatibilities.

I am beginning to think (call it a brain wavelet, anyway far from a brain storm, I'm carefull 
with my sparse brain matter)  there may be another option.
With new versions, new functions are introduced, which cannot be read by older versions. We 
accept that.
In this case, it's the same function, but with a new option (i.e. not having to provide argument 
significance).
Is it really a problem that -if and only if the optional argument is ommitted- older versions 
cannot read it?

The problem is you don't know if it would be a problem ;-)
In mixed environments where people are collaborating using different
releases it matters. They can be well educated and precautious and avoid
such traps, but could also never have seen the help text or
FunctionWizard and/or just use the function like it naturally should be,
without superfluous extra parameters.

With a proper mention in the help text (possibly in the function wizard hint as well), users of 
the ODF-compliant version are warned that if they want backward compatibilty, they need to 
provide the optional argument.

People don't read help texts unless they encounter a problem, even then
only sometimes but that doesn't matter here ;-)  The author/generator
side would not have the problem, it would be the consumer side using the
earlier release.

For export to Excel format, the same applies and (soon) there is a choice of several 
Excel-CEILING/FLOOR functions.

Which btw reminds me that at some point we could introduce mappings to
defined ODFF functions for some of those when saving as ODF instead of
COM.MICROSOFT.* in case the document is to be read by consumers that do
not implement the MS ones. Just as a side note.

In short, I tend to be a supporter of a change at once with proper information of it to the user 
as opposed to your gradual (5 versions) change with risks of complications should anything happen 
with respect to the developer feeding the patches to these 5 versions or the function definitions 
themselves.

Actually the risk is quite low, as every release would introduce
a self-maintained state. To shorten things the final cut could be done
at every step if the sequence turned out to be unmaintainable.

Fortunately we do have some time now for 4.3 to think things over. I'm
not clinging to my proposal but I think it's best for the users
who exchange documents.

  Eike

-- 
LibreOffice Calc developer. Number formatter stricken i18n transpositionizer.
GPG key ID: 0x65632D3A - 2265 D7F3 A7B0 95CC 3918  630B 6A6C D5B7 6563 2D3A
Support the FSFE, care about Free Software! https://fsfe.org/support/?erack

Attachment: pgppxFVLGhBvp.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.