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
On 02/06/2013 03:58 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
On Feb 5, 2013, at 8:26 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
Is there any recommendation/objection on this? After hsqldb I would
like to move on to lucene.
In this case, it would be nice to investigate if lucence can be replaced
by clucene, this will
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
On 02/06/2013 12:50 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
On 02/06/2013 06:15 AM, Michael Lam wrote:
On 02/06/2013 05:57 AM, Herbert Duerr wrote:
I just saw that Ariel had already provided an excellent answer when I
had trouble with my mail connection. Sorry about that.
On 06.02.2013 11:49, Herbert Duerr
Hi Michael,
On 11.02.2013 17:21, Michael Lam wrote:
I have successfully test hsqldb-2.2.9 against the following 4 issues and
it is functioning correctly:
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=96823
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=103528
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Fred Ollinger folli...@gmail.com wrote:
To whom it may concern,
Below is a patch to fix some java7 compilation bugs. Also, this is attached.
Thanks for the patch, Fred!
I've created a Bugzilla issue for this, so we don't lose track of it.
I also added you to
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Herbert Duerr h...@apache.org wrote:
Hi Michael,
On 11.02.2013 17:21, Michael Lam wrote:
I have successfully test hsqldb-2.2.9 against the following 4 issues and
it is functioning correctly:
For some reason, I failed to consider this question until some restless sleep
this past weekend.
My understanding is that the improvements in OOXML handling are to be made
available under the ALv2 license. However, if those are in the form of
patches, their usefulness to AOO will depend on
On 02/11/2013 01:16 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Herbert Duerr h...@apache.org wrote:
Hi Michael,
On 11.02.2013 17:21, Michael Lam wrote:
I have successfully test hsqldb-2.2.9 against the following 4 issues and
it is functioning correctly:
I'll help with testing java 6 and java 7 from Oracle.
I vote for keeping up with latest and greatest, but we should also
respect that many distros are probably going to ship java 6 for a
while.
Thus, we should probably work with both then officially deprecated
java6 when it's time.
Fred
On
Google announced the timeline for the 2013 program today:
http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/events/google/gsoc2013
The ASF has applied as a mentoring organization in the past. I assume
we will again this year. If so there would be a limited number of
slots for Apache, which mentors
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Michael Lam mnsyl4...@verizon.net wrote:
It is partially to address the JDK issue but there have been improvements
in HSQLDB for both performance and conformance that would be helpful which
is why I lean more towards updating to the latest rather than patching
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Fred Ollinger folli...@gmail.com wrote:
but we should also
respect that many distros are probably going to ship java 6 for a
while.
for example?
FC
Haha, I don't know. I could be wrong.
I'm not trying to start a debate, but I'm just trying help to get
things working on as many current distros as possible.
Best Wishes,
Fred
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Fernando Cassia fcas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Fred
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
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Fred Ollinger folli...@gmail.com wrote:
Haha, I don't know. I could be wrong.
OpenJDK 7 is the current version, OpenJDK 8 is coming along nicely.
OpenJDK 6 is the past. Yes, there' s been some RedHat volunteers saying
they' ll keep releasing OpenJDK 6 updates
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
You certainly have seen from the 0^0 discussion that I have raised the problem
of the backward compatibility with 4.0 and extensions. In fact, it affects only
the extensions with a custom toolbar. But except the dictionaries, I guess that
it makes a good deal of them still.
The problem has
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
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net wrote:
You certainly have seen from the 0^0 discussion that I have raised the
problem of the backward compatibility with 4.0 and extensions. In fact, it
affects only the extensions with a custom toolbar. But except the
OK, I won't build with java6 anymore then.
Fred
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Fernando Cassia fcas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Fred Ollinger folli...@gmail.com wrote:
Haha, I don't know. I could be wrong.
OpenJDK 7 is the current version, OpenJDK 8 is coming
This is not a vote. There is a statement about what is acceptable
mathematically that I cannot leave unchallenged. However, that is different
than what might or might not be acceptable computationally for a give case and
I continue to refrain from reiterating any argument about that.
-
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Fred Ollinger folli...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, I won't build with java6 anymore then.
don' t get me wrong, I don' t want to influence your decissions one way or
the other.
For sure there's a lot of openjdk 6 installed out there.
My point was that, going forward,
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
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
mathematically that I cannot leave unchallenged. However, that is different
than what might or might not be acceptable computationally for a
Le 11/02/2013 22:46, Rob Weir a écrit :
My impression was that even if we made no changes, from the user's
perspective, they would lose all extensions. This is due to the
change in base directory for the profile. So all extensions would be
lost and need to be reinstalled. So there will be no
On 02/11/2013 02:19 PM, Fred Ollinger wrote:
OK, I won't build with java6 anymore then.
Fred
More than likely no need unless certain sites/people refuse to update to
java 1.7. I really can't imagine who that would be at this point.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Fernando Cassia
I love it. I'd prefer a warning rather than silently giving me 1 even
if I had that in the past.
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
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
On 11/02/2013 Hagar Delest wrote:
No real problem with reinstalling extensions after a major upgrade, I've
done that too.
But there is a difference between the mere inconvenience of reinstalling
extensions and losing
Oh no, please no popup
when I paste that formula into 1000 cells, I don't want 1000 popups.
Sadly, I sometimes do stupid things like that when I have a warning in
functions that I write myself and a debug message pops up during
testing. Yeah, scary! Now, a single warning that is only ever
Hello Jorge,
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 07:31:15PM -0600, jorge ivan poot diaz wrote:
Hello,
I've done the tutorial about but the expected result was not successful,
here is the link:
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Tutorial_About
Those tutorials are rather old, the code has changes in
I understand the changes but that should not impede the buttons may not work as
I applied the instructions in the required classes. So why not work?
2013/2/11 Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:26:22PM -0300, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
]$ cd
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 09:00:55PM -0600, jorge ivan poot diaz wrote:
I understand the changes but that should not impede the buttons may not work
as
I applied the instructions in the required classes. So why not work?
I can't guess without seeing what you've done. Please attach a patch
with
On 02/11/2013 05:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
On 02/11/2013 02:19 PM, Fred Ollinger wrote:
OK, I won't build with java6 anymore then.
Fred
More than likely no need unless certain sites/people refuse to update
to java 1.7. I really can't imagine who that would be at this point.
On Mon, Feb
I am guessing my next steps would be looking into updating the build to
pull the jar?
Better use the mechanism provided by main/external_deps.lst
Herbert
I have updated the external_deps.lst with the updated hsqldb
information. If someone can give me some pointer into how to just
retrieve
Here is the changes I made, I declare the button according to the tutorial, but
I have not the expected results.
http://ooo.pastebin.ca/2313036
http://ooo.pastebin.ca/2313037
The changes I have done well, as each code I put it where it belongs.
2013/2/11 jorge ivan poot diaz
Here are the patch.
2013/2/12 jorge ivan poot diaz ivan.pootd...@gmail.com
Here is the changes I made, I declare the button according to the tutorial
, but I have not the expected results.
http://ooo.pastebin.ca/2313036
http://ooo.pastebin.ca/2313037
The changes I have done well, as each
Hi Jorge,
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:06:12AM -0600, jorge ivan poot diaz wrote:
Here is the changes I made, I declare the button according to the tutorial,
but
I have not the expected results.
http://ooo.pastebin.ca/2313036
http://ooo.pastebin.ca/2313037
The changes I have done well,
Jamie,
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 05:21:02 +1000
From: James Teh ja...@nvaccess.orgmailto:ja...@nvaccess.org
To: NVDA screen reader development
Subject: Re: [NVDA-dev] Apache Open Office IAccessible2 QA ia2 branch
builds
Hi Stuart,
Thanks for letting us know. Initial testing is very
48 matches
Mail list logo
