When it is in the part that is being translated localizers will take care of "," versus ".".
I know the "x10" is a scientific notation and I use it and like it, but since our calc does not accept it, I would prefer the E notation, so people does not get confused. Jan. On 3 November 2012 19:14, RGB ES <rgb.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2012/11/3 jan iversen <jancasacon...@gmail.com> > > > May I politely as a mathematician point out that there is a major > > difference in the 2 proposals. > > > > Number 1 is a mathematical expression whereas number 2 is a number. > > > > I'm physicist :) > > The first number is the traditional scientific notation (specially if > proper super indexes are used) while the second one is the "E notation" > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation#E_notation > > > > > > > Now I do not know where it is used, > > > One example > > https://translate.apache.org/es/OOo_34_help/translate.html?unit=6097629 > > Regards > Ricardo > > > > > but if I copy both suggestions into > > Calc, it believes it is text. > > > > Should we not have a format that our own calc accept as a number ?? > > > > I agree with andrea that number 2 is more readable (and then forget it is > > not a number). > > > > rgds > > Jan I. > > > > > > On 3 November 2012 17:47, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > RGB ES wrote: > > > > > >> On the help files, you find numbers written like > > >> 1.79769313486232 x 10E308 > > >> > > >> This is wrong: it should be either > > >> 1.79769313486232 x 10^308 > > >> or > > >> 1.79769313486232E308 > > >> what do you think? > > >> > > > > > > Yes, it's wrong and your first proposal is correct and more readable > than > > > the second one. Then I wonder how many times we have these kind of > > numbers > > > in our documentation... and probably when they do appear we are more > > > interested in their order of magnitude than in their actual value. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Andrea. > > > > > >
