https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=137679
--- Comment #20 from b. <[email protected]> ---
(In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #17)
i have rarely heard more stupid nonsense than declaring code to be its own
documentation. i know such approaches used to exist, but in cryptolanguages
like C this is silly. in order to analyze idiosyncratic functions or errors of
a program, there needs to be an explanation outside the code of what the
program is supposed to do, how it is supposed to work, what restrictions it is
subject to, and so on. 'we do fp-math as it is historically grown and our dear
@Mike Kaganski (doesn't) understand it' is not enough (for me).
> (In reply to b. from comment #16)
> > If you can point me to an concise explanation where is explained how calc
> > works with details about deviations to 'standard math' i'd possibly ask less
> > silly questions ...
>
> Yes, it's documented in the source code. E.g., RAWSUBTRACT is at
> https://opengrok.libreoffice.org/xref/core/sc/source/core/tool/interpr6.
> cxx?r=f3fc16f4&mo=38325&fi=1068#1068
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
