On 20/02/2013 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
[Pedro]
I also want an assurance that this will never *ever* happen again (I am
talking about the revert, I guess bikesheds are unavoidable). ...
what I will do ... is to propose changes to
http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#Veto that make it clea
ns
> that are in ISO C Appendix F.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 14:08
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Solving this 0⁰ issue correctly (was Re: Calc behavior: resul
ebruary 20, 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 wrote:
> I earlier quoted the applicable (and only) texts from the Standards
-Rob
> The developers 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:
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*
something other than 1?
Btw,
his implementation appears to return 1 for pow(0,0)
> -- the code is pretty snarly).
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
> Sent: 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.
>
> [ ... ]
>
e.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.
[ ... ]
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Pedro Giffuni 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 sugg
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
>> sett
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 po
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> 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
ginal 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 wrote:
> On 18.02.2013 01:1
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Andre Fischer 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 have
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 m
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 Eastwo
On Feb 18, 2013 1:16 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 Clin
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 7:15 PM, 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
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 me remember one of
my favorite movies ever.
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Ugh.. I am really tired of this.
>
> I even declare myself agnostic.
>
Pedro, this is not about you. It is about the code. You are welcome
to believe deeply that 0^0 should be NaN. You don't need to be
agnostic. But the code should not b
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.
as practical success. 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 --
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 so
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Hagar Delest 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 be offended if so
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 be offended if someone else does
it.
The vetoes were very poorly documented.
No
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 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 t
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.
---
>> Da: Rob Weir
>> A: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Pedro Giffuni
>> 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 wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
Rob;
Can you confirm the platform where you got those results?
Thanks,
Pedro.
- Messaggio originale -
> Da: Rob Weir
> A: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Pedro Giffuni
> Cc:
> Inviato: Giovedì 14 Febbraio 2013 16:47
> Oggetto: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
>
>
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
>
>
>
> - Messaggio originale -
>> Da: Rob Weir
>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> - Messaggio originale -
Da: Rob Weir
>>>
And I should say that I'm happy to help if y
- Messaggio originale -
> Da: Rob Weir
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni 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
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hello Kay;
>
>
> - Messaggio originale -
> > Da: Kay Schenk
>
> >
> > I readily admit this is true. I would like my veto to stand and here I
> will
> > elaborate and hopefully provide my technical justification.
> >
> > In my mind,
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni 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
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, Andrea
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni 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
- 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 t
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>
>>
>> - Messaggio originale -
>>> Da: Rob Weir
>> ...
OOo already has plenty of functions that give backwards
incompatible results with previous versions of OOo and
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Pedro Giffuni 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,
- 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
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Pedro Giffuni 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, i
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 1:58 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:49 AM, 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
Hello Kay;
- Messaggio originale -
> Da: Kay Schenk
>
> I readily admit this is true. I would like my veto to stand and here I will
> elaborate and hopefully provide my technical justification.
>
> In my mind, current mathematical information aside, we have implemented an
> acceptable
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:49 AM, 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 to think
>>> (not to
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 alg
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
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 to think
>>> (not to
>> We had a commit
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
>
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 i
- 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 compati
On 02/14/2013 07:52 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
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.
I thought he said he vetoed it and it would be voted on later.
I was not aware that any committer could veto any
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> 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
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!) abou
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 to
- 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
- 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 POW
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: http:/
On 02/13/2013 11:14 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Pedro Giffuni 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.or
>Sent: 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 d
>
> Da: Kay Schenk
...
>
>On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Joe Schaefer
>> 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
>> > an
_______
> >> From: Joe Schaefer
> >>To: "dev@openoffice.apache.org" ; Pedro
> Giffuni
> >>Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:53 AM
> >>Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
> >>
> >>
> >>Honestly I'
, February 13, 2013 12:30 PM
>Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
>
>On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> OTOH I haven't seen anyone issue a technical
>> veto on this change, which is really what's
>> required before Pedro actually
noffice.apache.org" ; Pedro Giffuni
>>
>>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 enjo
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Joe Schaefer 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 curious
> here. Th
nt: 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 Bourb
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Pedro Giffuni 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
y 13, 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) = si
information we can
revise the issue before 4.0 is released.
Pedro.
>
> Da: RGB ES
>A: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Pedro Giffuni
>Inviato: Mercoledì 13 Febbraio 2013 10:43
>Oggetto: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
>
>
>Not answering any pa
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. :-)
>
> Quatern
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
Hello;
>
> Da: Norbert Thiebaud
...
>On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Pedro Giffuni 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 fo
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
statements
On 13.02.2013 08:28, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Pedro Giffuni 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 differenti
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Pedro Giffuni 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 take a
>> series
>> of
On 02/12/2013 11:21 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
No, I cant, and I wont start scartching my head over it.
The issue is minuscule enough that I have been aware from the start that it
wasnt worth this bikeshed thread [1].
Of course, had I implemented quaternion math using Boost, no one would be
com
On 02/12/2013 05:45 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Hagar Delest 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.
You don't seem to see the
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
al is already included in the SVN.
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.o
No, I cant, and I wont start scartching my head over it.
The issue is minuscule enough that I have been aware from the start that it
wasnt worth this bikeshed thread [1].
Of course, had I implemented quaternion math using Boost, no one would be
complaining. :-P
Pedro.
[1] http://bikeshed.org
On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Pedro Giffuni 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 take a
> series
> of polinomials where n !=0. n is not only different than zero,
(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 pow
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> I also invite the numerous mathematicians on this list to refer to "N.
> Boubaki (*), Element of Mathematics, Set Theory, p164: III.3.5
> Proposition 11. "[...] Note in particular that 0^0 = 1."
http://books.google.com/books?id=IL-SI67h
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
> 1) Nobody so far exhibited a spreadsheet that would be broken by the new
> behavior.
I think attachment to the list are stripped... but... any spreadsheet
that try to teach the Power Rule
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_rule )
with
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
The objective is to achieve consensus. I believe it is clear that there is
no consensus on the proposed change and the proposal fails.
I still have to see some credible arguments here, since most of the
feedback was misplaced. What we learned so far is:
1) Nobody s
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Hagar Delest 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.
>
>
> You don't seem to see the benefit of the change: warn the
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 h
is now.
My 2 ct.
Marcus
Has the patch been vetoed, and if so on what basis?
Pedro.
Da: Dennis E. Hamilton
A: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: dwhyt...@gmail.com; pesce...@apache.org; 'Pedro
Giffuni'
Inviato: Martedì 12 Febbraio 2013 13:11
O
question on this list is not
really telling you anything. We've had 37 million downloads of AOO
3.4. Only 400 people subscribe to this list. So I don't think this
is great evidence for saying it has zero impact.
But again, if you think that situation never comes up in real use,
then let's
che.org
Cc: dwhyt...@gmail.com; pesce...@apache.org; 'Pedro
Giffuni'
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
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 (o
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
>>>> Support.
>>>>
>>>> "Exponentiation
>>>>
>>>> "The current version of Calc produces 1 for POWER(0,0). This is one of
>>>> the
>>>> implementation-defined results that is permitted by ODF 1.2 OpenFormula.
>&g
n what basis?
Pedro.
Da: Dennis E. Hamilton
A: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: dwhyt...@gmail.com; pesce...@apache.org; 'Pedro Giffuni'
Inviato: Martedì 12 Febbraio 2013 13:11
Oggetto: RE: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
RESOLUTION OF THE PROPOSAL
The proposed change was made
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Pedro Giffuni 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 up in absurd
: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>Cc: dwhyt...@gmail.com; pesce...@apache.org; 'Pedro Giffuni'
>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 Re
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 mat
Da: Dennis E. Hamilton
>>A: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>>Cc: dwhyt...@gmail.com; pesce...@apache.org; 'Pedro Giffuni'
>>Inviato: Martedì 12 Febbraio 2013 13:11
>>Oggetto: RE: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
>>
>>RESOLUTION OF THE PROPOSAL
>>
>>The
@gmail.com; pesce...@apache.org; 'Pedro Giffuni'
>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
e
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 ^ 0
...So I got curious, and I paged back in my email arch
...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
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
