I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this thread keeps reappearing
in my inbox ;).
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Andrea Pescetti
...
what the result of the power function in edge cases should be.
So let me suggest a solution ... this really needs to be a per-document
setting. ...
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this thread keeps reappearing
in my inbox ;).
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Andrea Pescetti
...
what the result of the power function in edge cases should be.
So let me
⁰ issue correctly (was Re: Calc behavior: result of
0 ^ 0)
[ ... ] ANSI C, C99, ISO C++ all require that
pow(x,0) return 1 for all values of x.
[ ... ]
: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 07:08
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Solving this 0⁰ issue correctly (was Re: Calc behavior: result
of 0 ^ 0)
[ ... ] ANSI C, C99, ISO C++ all require that
pow(x,0) return 1 for all values of x.
[ ... ]
of C 2011 also didn't seem to be under any compulsion with
regard to the C99 Rationale.
-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:14
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Solving this 0⁰ issue correctly (was Re: Calc behavior
@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Solving this 0⁰ issue correctly (was Re: Calc behavior: result
of 0 ^ 0)
[ ... ] I'm reading a requirement for pow(x,0) to
return 1 for all values of x. Are you seeing something else? Are you
seeing anything that says a conforming C/C++ runtime may *return
, 2013 14:08
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org
Subject: Re: Solving this 0⁰ issue correctly (was Re: Calc behavior: result of
0 ^ 0)
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote:
I earlier quoted the applicable (and only) texts from the Standards
, 2013 14:08
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org
Subject: Re: Solving this 0⁰ issue correctly (was Re: Calc behavior: result
of 0 ^ 0)
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote:
I earlier quoted the applicable (and only) texts from the Standards
On 18/02/2013 Rob Weir wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Andre Fischer wrote:
On 18.02.2013 01:15, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
[Andre] turn this into a switch that can be altered via Tools-Options
at runtime by the user. The user is ultimately the only person who knows
what the result of the
On Feb 18, 2013 1:16 AM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Hello;
Well, as you might imagine I am really tired of the flame storm that
went around the 0 ^ 0 issue. My intention here is not at all to re-start
that discussion. I really have much more fun things to do.
I am actualy a fan
On 2/18/13 1:15 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hello;
Well, as you might imagine I am really tired of the flame storm that
went around the 0 ^ 0 issue. My intention here is not at all to re-start
that discussion. I really have much more fun things to do.
I am actualy a fan of Clint Eastwood so
On 18.02.2013 01:15, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hello;
Well, as you might imagine I am really tired of the flame storm that
went around the 0 ^ 0 issue. My intention here is not at all to re-start
that discussion. I really have much more fun things to do.
I am actualy a fan of Clint Eastwood so let
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Andre Fischer awf@gmail.com wrote:
On 18.02.2013 01:15, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hello;
Well, as you might imagine I am really tired of the flame storm that
went around the 0 ^ 0 issue. My intention here is not at all to re-start
that discussion. I really
Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 06:27
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Solving this 0⁰ issue correctly (was Re: Calc behavior: result of
0 ^ 0)
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Andre Fischer awf@gmail.com wrote:
On 18.02.2013
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.comwrote:
On 2/18/13 1:15 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hello;
Well, as you might imagine I am really tired of the flame storm that
went around the 0 ^ 0 issue. My intention here is not at all to re-start
that discussion.
On 16/02/2013 Hagar Delest wrote:
I'm rather disappointed by the way it has been handled.
I agree it could have been better. There were also some unprecedented
events, like a veto, and the discussion mixed in procedural elements,
technical elements, folkloristic elements... And the tone of
. POWER(0,0) is not critical to that endeavor.
-Original Message-
From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 11:18
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
Hello Kay;
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Kay Schenk
Ugh.. I am really tired of this.
I even declare myself agnostic.
I have a new way to address this issue and hopefully put an end to it
and I will post it RSN, OK?
Pedro.
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net wrote:
Le 14/02/2013 23:34, Rob Weir a écrit :
In any case, I don't think anyone should care who reverts. Once a
veto has been stated, the code needs to be reverted. Who does it is a
matter of convenience. Please don't
On 2/14/13 2:29 AM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
On 02/13/2013 02:46 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Independently of the vote result I will be effectively stopping the
development work I intended to do on Calc as I have lost all
interest on improving it given the current situation.
I totally
On 13/02/2013 Pedro Giffuni wrote:
I will ask everyone to take a break for two weeks before starting the
voting procedure for this.
Fine. I would have started the vote earlier, but it's your code so I'll
respect your choice. And it's good to give people more time to think
(not to write!)
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Rob Weir
.--
We had a committer veto. Why are having a vote? A -1 from a
commmitter is not something we vote on. The patch needs to be
reverted, now.
We actually have two *invalid* vetos
I recall you aduced the change is not backwards compatible.
Rob Weir wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Fine. I would have started the vote earlier, but it's your code so I'll
respect your choice. And it's good to give people more time to think (not to
We had a committer veto. Why are having a vote? A -1 from a
commmitter
Hi Andrea;
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Andrea Pescetti
Rob Weir wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Fine. I would have started the vote earlier, but it's your code so
I'll
respect your choice. And it's good to give people more time to
think (not
Hello Juergen;
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Jürgen Schmidt
On 2/14/13 2:29 AM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
On 02/13/2013 02:46 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Independently of the vote result I will be effectively stopping the
development work I intended to do on Calc as I have
Hi Juergen;
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Jürgen Schmidt
...
And to be honest the technical ground for the veto is in this thread,
especially Norbert's mail.
As I replied to Norbert's email: the quote was taken out of context:
the definition applies to some special purpose algebra
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.orgwrote:
Rob Weir wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Fine. I would have started the vote earlier, but it's your code so I'll
Man.. do I have to repeat everything again?
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Rob Weir
And so it is clear, my technical objection is:
Backwards compatibility of spreadsheet documents, and calculations
specifically, is critical. If AOO 4.0 returns results that are even a
penny
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Man.. do I have to repeat everything again?
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Rob Weir
And so it is clear, my technical objection is:
Backwards compatibility of spreadsheet documents, and calculations
specifically,
- 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
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,
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
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
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Rob Weir
And I should say that I'm happy to help if you or anyone else wishes
to introduce a warning mode or formula lint or similar feature
that can be optionally enabled to check for possible inadvertent user
errors.
As the guys from the
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Rob Weir
And I should say that I'm happy to help if you or anyone else wishes
to introduce a warning mode or formula lint or similar feature
that can be optionally enabled to check
Hi all,
please have a break. Keep in mind, that our community members from China
have their Chinese New Year holidays and might not be back yet. Give
them a change to notice the discussion.
Kind regards
Regina
Andrea Pescetti schrieb:
Rob Weir wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:34 AM,
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Rob Weir
And I should say that I'm happy to help if you or anyone else wishes
to introduce a warning mode or
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Rob Weir
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Rob Weir
And I should say that I'm happy to help if you or anyone else
wishes
to introduce a warning mode or formula
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Rob Weir
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Rob Weir
And I should say that I'm happy to help if you or
Rob;
Can you confirm the platform where you got those results?
Thanks,
Pedro.
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Rob Weir robw...@apache.org
A: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org
Cc:
Inviato: Giovedì 14 Febbraio 2013 16:47
Oggetto: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0
...@apache.org
A: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org
Cc:
Inviato: Giovedì 14 Febbraio 2013 16:47
Oggetto: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Rob Weir
And I should say
Thats alright I just needed to know it was not linux.
In the bugzilla issue Dennis had reported those were OK in some platform.
Ah well, given the monster thread this caused excuse me if I dont hurry to fix
it ;).
Pedro.
On 02/14/2013 09:29 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
On 2/14/13 2:49 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Rob Weir wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Fine. I would have started the vote earlier, but it's your code so I'll
respect your choice. And it's good to give people more time
I did not test with your patch. I reported on behavior of available
releases.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 19:42
To: rabas...@gmail.com; dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: :Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
On 13.02.2013 08:28, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Rob Weir rabas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
(OK, I guess it's better to re-subscribe to the list).
In reply to Norbert Thiebaud*:
In the Power rule, which
Hi,
I reply to this mail, because I have some remarks to Andrea's statements
(see below). But please excuse, if I (as german) perhaps use not always
the right english words/expressions/definitions.)
But first:
Norbert Thibaud has cleared the mathematical questions and shown, that
Hello;
Da: Norbert Thiebaud
...
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Rob Weir rabas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
(OK, I guess it's better to re-subscribe to the list).
In reply to Norbert Thiebaud*:
In the Power rule, which *is*
Not answering any particular message, so top posting.
Two points:
a) Of course you can always redefine a function to fill holes on non
defined points: for example, redefining sinc(x) = sin(x)/x to be 1 on x=0
makes sense because you obtain a continuous function... but that's on 1
variable: when
FWIW;
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Andrew Douglas Pitonyak
Of course, had I implemented quaternion math using Boost, no one would be
complaining. :-P
Pedro.
[1] http://bikeshed.org
Do it, do it, do it; PLEESSEEE. :-)
Quaternions are cool.
information we can
revise the issue before 4.0 is released.
Pedro.
Da: RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com
A: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org
Inviato: Mercoledì 13 Febbraio 2013 10:43
Oggetto: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
Not answering any
, 2013 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
Not answering any particular message, so top posting.
Two points:
a) Of course you can always redefine a function to fill holes on non
defined points: for example, redefining sinc(x) = sin(x)/x to be 1 on x=0
makes sense because you
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
FWIW;
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Andrew Douglas Pitonyak
Of course, had I implemented quaternion math using Boost, no one would be
complaining. :-P
Pedro.
[1] http://bikeshed.org
Do it, do it, do it;
p...@apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
Honestly I'd say that if anything is clear,
it's that changing away from the status quo
currently enjoys zero consensus.
As a Ph.D. mathematician who knows about Bourbaki,
all I can say
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Honestly I'd say that if anything is clear,
it's that changing away from the status quo
currently enjoys zero consensus.
As a Ph.D. mathematician who knows about Bourbaki,
all I can say is that line of argument is
...@apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
Honestly I'd say that if anything is clear,
it's that changing away from the status quo
currently enjoys zero consensus.
As a Ph.D. mathematician who knows about Bourbaki,
all I can say is that line
13, 2013 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
OTOH I haven't seen anyone issue a technical
veto on this change, which is really what's
required before Pedro actually needs to revert
anything.
I
: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
I think the days of fruitful debate
about this topic are well past us now.
What this issue needs at this point
is a decision one way or the other.
There are several ways of doing that
according to the general voting
On 02/13/2013 11:14 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
FWIW;
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Andrew Douglas Pitonyak
Of course, had I implemented quaternion math using Boost, no one would be
complaining. :-P
Pedro.
[1]
On 02/13/2013 02:46 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Independently of the vote result I will be effectively stopping the
development work I intended to do on Calc as I have lost all
interest on improving it given the current situation.
I totally understand.
--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document:
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Joe Schaefer
FWIW I refreshed my memory about how
to compute polynomials numerically by
looking back at my old copy of Numerical
Recipes in C and it's always considered
bad form to evaluate the terms individually,
especially not by using the POWER
- Messaggio originale -
Da: Andrew Douglas Pitonyak
...
On 02/13/2013 02:46 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Independently of the vote result I will be effectively stopping the
development work I intended to do on Calc as I have lost all
interest on improving it given the current
On 11/02/2013 Andre Fischer wrote:
On 11.02.2013 17:10, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
A specification may need to leave room for implementation-defined
behavior. Look at the C or C++ standard for example.
Do you know of any example where this is actually a good thing?
It is good for developers who
...So I got curious, and I paged back in my email archive, and it
seems this is the biggest AOO dev thread since the graduation vote
back in early September.
At this point, does anyone care enough about changing the status quo
as to put up a coherent proposal to be voted on?
Don
is.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 14:24
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: RE: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
This is not a vote. There is a statement about what is acceptable
mathematically
.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Donald Whytock [mailto:dwhyt...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 09:20
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
...So I got curious, and I paged back in my email archive, and it
seems this is the biggest AOO dev
...@gmail.com; pesce...@apache.org; 'Pedro Giffuni' p...@apache.org
Inviato: Martedì 12 Febbraio 2013 13:11
Oggetto: RE: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
RESOLUTION OF THE PROPOSAL
The proposed change was made under CTR (Commit then Review). There has been
a subsequent review and, as Don points out
...@gmail.com; pesce...@apache.org; 'Pedro Giffuni' p...@apache.org
Inviato: Martedì 12 Febbraio 2013 13:11
Oggetto: RE: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
RESOLUTION OF THE PROPOSAL
The proposed change was made under CTR (Commit then Review). There has been
a subsequent review and, as Don points out
Ugh..
I haven't been following this thread at all ...
I unsubscribed from the -dev list because I always ended up in absurd
discussions
and there was not much technical content either.
I suspected it would be bikeshed.org material but in any case let me make
things clear.
- 0^0 = 1 is NOT
@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: dwhyt...@gmail.com; pesce...@apache.org; 'Pedro Giffuni'
p...@apache.org
Inviato: Martedì 12 Febbraio 2013 13:11
Oggetto: RE: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
RESOLUTION OF THE PROPOSAL
The proposed change was made under CTR (Commit then Review). There has been
a subsequent review
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Ugh..
I haven't been following this thread at all ...
I recommend reading the archives then, since every argument that could
be made, has been made already.
-Rob
I unsubscribed from the -dev list because I always ended
.
Da: Dennis E. Hamiltondennis.hamil...@acm.org
A: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: dwhyt...@gmail.com; pesce...@apache.org; 'Pedro Giffuni'p...@apache.org
Inviato: Martedì 12 Febbraio 2013 13:11
Oggetto: RE: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
RESOLUTION OF THE PROPOSAL
. Hamiltondennis.hamil...@acm.org
A: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: dwhyt...@gmail.com; pesce...@apache.org; 'Pedro
Giffuni'p...@apache.org
Inviato: Martedì 12 Febbraio 2013 13:11
Oggetto: RE: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
RESOLUTION OF THE PROPOSAL
The proposed change was made under CTR (Commit
Le 12/02/2013 22:31, Marcus (OOo) a écrit :
Some facts from the issue itself:
- open since 2010-09-09
- only 2 votes (from author of comment #2)
Now 4 with mines.
Hagar
Le 12/02/2013 00:45, Fred Ollinger a écrit :
Another idea is to return 1, but have a popup which says: We are
returning 1 to 0^0 due to backwards compatability, but we this might
change in the fure. Click here to never show this warning again and
continue to return 1. Also, you can use strict
...@acm.org
A: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: dwhyt...@gmail.com; pesce...@apache.org; 'Pedro
Giffuni'p...@apache.org
Inviato: Martedì 12 Febbraio 2013 13:11
Oggetto: RE: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
RESOLUTION OF THE PROPOSAL
The proposed change was made under CTR (Commit then Review). There has
been
. Hamiltondennis.hamil...@acm.org
A: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: dwhyt...@gmail.com; pesce...@apache.org; 'Pedro
Giffuni'p...@apache.org
Inviato: Martedì 12 Febbraio 2013 13:11
Oggetto: RE: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
RESOLUTION OF THE PROPOSAL
The proposed change was made under CTR (Commit
2013 13:11
Oggetto: RE: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
RESOLUTION OF THE PROPOSAL
The proposed change was made under CTR (Commit then Review). There has
been
a subsequent review and, as Don points out, the discussion has been
lengthy
and vocal.
The objective is to achieve consensus. I believe
Le 12/02/2013 23:22, Rob Weir a écrit :
But again, if you think that situation never comes up in real use,
then let's not make the change, since it would have no benefit.
You don't seem to see the benefit of the change: warn the user that there is
something weird in the formula that requires
(OK, I guess it's better to re-subscribe to the list).
In reply to Norbert Thiebaud*:
In the Power rule, which *is* commonly used for differentiation, we take a
series
of polinomials where n !=0. n is not only different than zero, most importantly,
it is a constant.
Of course we can use the
.
If the proposal is not accepted as the result of CTR review, the
Issue will be closed and the patch reverted.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Donald Whytock [mailto:dwhyt...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 09:20
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0
On 02/12/2013 05:07 PM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
Am 02/12/2013 10:39 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
Sorry, if it wasn't clear. I have a spreadsheet on my hard-drive
right now that would be break if we changed the behavior of 0^0.
And what is your *serious* use case for this spreadsheet? Beside to
use it
On 02/12/2013 05:45 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net wrote:
Le 12/02/2013 23:22, Rob Weir a écrit :
But again, if you think that situation never comes up in real use,
then let's not make the change, since it would have no benefit.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Rob Weir rabas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
(OK, I guess it's better to re-subscribe to the list).
In reply to Norbert Thiebaud*:
In the Power rule, which *is* commonly used for differentiation, we
On 2/11/13 5:39 AM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
On 02/10/2013 10:04 AM, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
My thinking is the Calc should return the mathematically correct answer.
ODF standard defines what can be returned. If there is a single
mathematically correct answer, I would expect the standard
On 10.02.2013 00:11, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
A good practical example of backwards-incompatible changes in version
4.0 is the behavior of Calc while computing 0 ^ 0.
You can find a long issue, with different points of view, about this at:
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=114430
but
On 2/10/13 9:51 PM, Hagar Delest wrote:
Le 10/02/2013 21:21, Rob Weir a écrit :
Did you not notice the title of this thread? Has it entirely escaped
you that we're talking about 0^0 here? If you want to start another
threat about extensions, then go ahead and I will comment there. But
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:57:57AM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
It is unavoidable that we will open a discussion about the
extensions compatibility; I started this one about 0 ^ 0 which is
enjoying unexpected popularity (and I would appreciate, for the sake
of completeness, to see one example
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak
and...@pitonyak.org wrote:
On 02/10/2013 10:04 AM, Rory O'Farrell wrote:
My thinking is the Calc should return the mathematically correct answer.
ODF standard defines what can be returned. If there is a single
mathematically correct
Andre Fischer wrote:
If the spec said that 2 is the only valid return value then we would
have to return 2.
But then, since we also read XLSX and the OOXML standard prescribes that
0 ^ 0 should return an error, returning an error would be the common
ground here: of course we don't want to
Le 11/02/2013 05:57, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak a écrit :
I usually want things to just work. If an arbitrary value is used, and it is
not brought to my attention, I may not be producing the answer that I really
want. Not returning an error gives me a false sense of security.
That's precisely
Le 11/02/2013 09:13, Andre Fischer a écrit :
We should change the ODF spec first instead. A spec that basically says whatever you want to
return is fine is of no value, as was proven in this thread. This is something that I would
only accept from a random() function.
+1. That's also what
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net wrote:
Le 11/02/2013 05:57, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak a écrit :
I usually want things to just work. If an arbitrary value is used, and it
is not brought to my attention, I may not be producing the answer that I
really want.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net wrote:
Le 11/02/2013 09:13, Andre Fischer a écrit :
We should change the ODF spec first instead. A spec that basically says
whatever you want to return is fine is of no value, as was proven in this
thread. This is
2013/2/11 Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net
Le 11/02/2013 09:13, Andre Fischer a écrit :
We should change the ODF spec first instead. A spec that basically says
whatever you want to return is fine is of no value, as was proven in this
thread. This is something that I would only accept
02/10/13 04:43, Guenter Marxen пишет:
Hi,
I've looked in Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_power_zero#Zero_to_the_power_of_zero
and for me it seems very reasonable to keep the old behaviour, as
according to this article many math and other software treats 0^0 = 1
(see the paragraphs
Le 11/02/2013 21:40, Rob Weir a écrit :
Again, you are looking for the one true answer and declaring that
other answers are wrong.
No. Even if my personal inclination is for the undefined result, I can
understand the value 1.
But let the user decide and just warn him that he's facing a corner
P.S.
The over example:
[1-exp(x)]/x
tends to -1 while x - 0
of pi is not mathematics [QED]).
-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 12:40
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net wrote:
Le 11
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net wrote:
Le 11/02/2013 21:40, Rob Weir a écrit :
Again, you are looking for the one true answer and declaring that
other answers are wrong.
No. Even if my personal inclination is for the undefined result, I can
understand
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net
wrote:
Le 11/02/2013 09:13, Andre Fischer a écrit :
We should change the ODF spec first instead. A spec that basically says
whatever you want
: Monday, February 11, 2013 14:30
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; dennis.hamil...@acm.org
Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
This is not a vote. There is a statement about what is acceptable
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
