https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50299
--- Comment #28 from Robinson Tryon (qubit) <[email protected]> --- (In reply to klsu from comment #27) > Changing the instructions for using a function does not correct a bug. Users > will not expect to have to read the instructions for every function they > have used in Excel for years, before using them in LO (etc.). Specifically on this point, I'd say that LibreOffice is not Excel. If there are compelling mathematical reasons to implement a function or a feature in a similar fashion to another piece of software (e.g. Excel, Abiword, Sage, etc..), then I think it's valuable for us to consider it, but sometimes Excel is just wrong (Classic example: the '1900' leap-year bug). > Programmers > seem to not understand that the computer, and therefore the software, is > supposed to allow the user to work efficiently. When software forces the > user to work a certain way, the programmer is making the incorrect > assumption that he/she knows the user's job as well as the user does. One potential use-case for Calc would be as a generic tool for numerical computation (with the modulus function operating without the limitations described above). I don't think that the Calc developers currently see that as a primary goal of the software, so if there is a disconnect between their view of the tool and how our users see it, perhaps we need to sit down and figure out how to reconcile these two groups. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________ Libreoffice-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
