On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: > > > ----- Messaggio originale ----- >> Da: Rob Weir > ... >>> >>> OOo already has plenty of functions that give backwards >>> incompatible results with previous versions of OOo and >>> Symphony (which is rather crappy). atanh, asinh, erf, >>> everything in SAL has needed continued revisions. >>> >> >> I have not seen anything that took a legitimate formula and changed it >> to an error. I'm not ab absolutist. I'm willing to consider changes >> at the 8th decimal points. But not gross level breaks in >> compatibility. >> > > Please note that we don't return an error: this is not something that will > cause > core dumps or affect stability: we return Not a Number (NaN), which is more > in line with the mathematical behavior of the real function and signals > the end user that he likely made has to revisit his formulation (all very good > IMHO). > > The distinction is important. I surely didn't introduce a bug. > > >>>> Finally, treating 0^0 == 1 is very common in programming languages and >>>> spreadsheets, being the value returned by OpenOffice since 1.0, as >>>> well as by Calligra Sheets, Google Docs, Symphony, LibreOffice, Java, >>>> C, and .NET. Anyone arguing that the value is incorrect faces a >>>> mountain of contrary opinion and practice. >>>> >>> >>> So far you have failed to produce an example of reasonable use where >>> such incompatibility is evident. >>> >> >> For purposes of a veto I only need to show that I have a technical objection. >> > > And I don't see a valid technical objection, just different criteria. > > Now, it is probably not fair for me to judge if your technical objection > is valid or not. It surely doesn't fall within the common examples ( > does not open a security exposure, negatively affects performance, > etc) >
You have two vetos. Are you going to revert or shall I do it for you? You are welcome to continue the discussion all you want, but that should be done with the change reverted first. -Rob > There should probably be an objective judge for these things (the PMC?) > but it is not defined within the Apache procedures. > > Pedro. >
