https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152968
--- Comment #2 from Wolfgang Jäger <[email protected]> --- The report was definitely not due to my personal needs. I never used more than about 100 columns, e.g, and rarely that much. Also, I'm tempted to think the support of nonsensically large numbers of columns by "competitors" is a combative measure, without which there would be no reason for LibO developers to introduce such hokum. Can you give me a realistic example of the need? For users thinking in 2D-tables (contingency or whatever) for any kind of information we would need as many columns as rows. (And what about the higher dimensions?) I think we have another case of forcing a waste of development resources including the related risks of regressions on LibO abusing the expectations of a badly informed crowd. On the other hand I use lots of time trying to support LibO by my contributions to the ask site and to a conventional forum on the topic. That's my personal motive to prefer fresh versions. Doing so I had to learn today that an example I made with V7.4 to show how a request (linked into my report above) could be solved, did not work for the questioner nor for a different contributor both using a V 7.3.x. I would assume the compatibility of a software with its own different versions -backwards and forwards- wherever possible at all, is at least as much important as the compatibility with alien software for similar purposes. Well, in this case a true fix may be impossible. If somebnody is interested in my idea in what way remedy could be found nonetheless introducing a kind of workaround into the core code, I will answer the question, of course. Anyway I hope this was the last time here that somebody told the story of the open-source ways and the paid-for development. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
