Issue 26125 - date functions ...
Summary: date functions ...
Status: CLOSED WONT_FIX
Alias: None
Product: Calc
Classification: Application
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: OOo 1.1.1RC
Hardware: All All
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: niklas.nebel
QA Contact: issues@sc
URL:
Keywords:
: 50460 67399 85395 116907 (view as issue list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-03-04 16:17 UTC by mmeeks
Modified: 2011-02-11 11:13 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---

Attachments
problematic sheet (18.50 KB, application/vnd.ms-excel)
2004-03-04 16:18 UTC, mmeeks 		no flags Details
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description mmeeks 2004-03-04 16:17:37 UTC 
I have a collected spreadsheet of OO.o/Excel compatibility problems; some of the
most interesting being the date problems collected at the bottom. This
spreadsheet generated using Office XP.

Date functions (OfficeXP)						
Value	MONTH	Excel	DAY 	Excel	YEAR	Exce
0	12	1	30	0	1899	1900
1	12	1	31	1	1899	1900
2	1	1	1	2	1900	1900

the columns being =MONTH(A2) etc. =DAY(A2) etc.

As you can see, at small values there appears to be a considerable disparity; is
this potentially related to zforfind.cxx's pNullDate value ? and/or why is that
constant cut/pasted into zforscan.cxx ?

Thanks.
Comment 1 mmeeks 2004-03-04 16:18:11 UTC 
Created attachment 13573 [details]
problematic sheet
Comment 2 niklas.nebel 2004-03-04 19:12:06 UTC 
This is a result of the infamous "date" 1900-02-29. We decided long ago not to
duplicate that behavior, and adjust the null date by a day instead. This does
mean that dates between 1900-01-01 and 1900-02-28 behave differently from Excel.
The problem with introducing that day would be that it would extend into areas
like the API, add-in functions, I18N calendar functions, or the file format. We
can't, for example, specify "ISO-8601 format date" in the file format and then
write "1900-02-29" in that case - it isn't a valid ISO date. So this has to
remain the way it is. Compatibility is important, but sanity is, too.
Comment 3 frank 2004-03-05 09:05:07 UTC 
so closed
Comment 4 frank 2005-06-08 10:50:27 UTC 
*** Issue 50460 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 5 niklas.nebel 2006-07-21 10:05:31 UTC 
*** Issue 67399 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 6 amy2008 2008-09-17 09:22:52 UTC 
*** Issue 85342 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 7 amy2008 2008-09-17 09:29:31 UTC 
*** Issue 85395 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 8 niklas.nebel 2011-02-11 11:13:36 UTC 
*** Issue 116907 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***