3
\$\begingroup\$

The LAMBDA function is going to be released to Excel eventually. This presents an opportunity to create a set of user-defined functions in Excel. If a standard set of functions with an eye toward golfing is defined, could this be considered to be a separate language? This seems like it would be similar to something like tinylisp.

Additional Thoughts

There are a few types of functions that I was considering for this language.

  • Current Excel functions with shorter name (just this would be boring)
  • Functions with better error handling. For example, COMBIN(3,4) could return 0 instead of #NUM.
  • Functions that are useful for golfing but missing from Excel. These include prime test, count of characters in a string, and splitting on a delimiter, to name a few.

Are there any suggestions to make this better?

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, this would be allowed, although it might be viewed as kind of boring depending on how it's done. \$\endgroup\$
    – Radvylf Programs
    Feb 13 at 0:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ This is in the trend of shortC, tinylisp, Mthmtca and others, so is absolutely allowed and distinct. However, depending on how it's implemented, you do run the risk of it being a "trivial" derivative and so boring \$\endgroup\$
    – caird coinheringaahing
    Feb 13 at 14:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ I definitely don't want to be boring. I will expand the question to show more of what I was thinking. \$\endgroup\$
    – Axuary
    Feb 13 at 17:08

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .