RE: tdf#69569 ODFFv1.2 part 2 incorrect

Hi Eike,

Have you been able to form an opinion yet re the conclusions/suggestions below?

Winfried

> woensdag 14 november 2018 11:38
>
> Hi Eike,
>
> I have been studying ODFFv1.2 part 2 §4.11.7.7 with
> https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69569#c17 , lines 1..5.
> in mind.
>
> My conclusions are that
> a) Line 8 should be
>     " 8.Otherwise, if _(not A)_ and is-leap-year(year(date1)) then return
> 366 ";
> b) Lines 9 and 10 can be combined by appending inclusive to both dates, the
> current line 9 is ambiguous and line 10 does not fully solve that;
> c) The constraint date1 >= date2 is missing in §4.11.7.
>
> I have made logical diagrams to cheack that all possible combinations of
> date1 and date2 are covered - on the presumption that date1 >= date2.
> If you agree with my conclusions, would it be possible that you submit a
> proposal for changing ODFF to reflect the above?
> I think that a proposal from you is more effective than one from me ;-)
>
> And if you agree with my conclusions I intend to work on bug tdf69569 to
> implement the proposed changes (c is already implemented in
> /core/scaddins/source.analysis/analysishelper.cxx, getYearFrac(.)).
>
>
> Winfried