On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 15:44:38 +0100 RGB ES <rgb.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/2/10 Hagar Delest <hagar.del...@laposte.net> > > > Le 10/02/2013 00:43, Rob Weir a écrit : > > > > Spreadsheets are used by businessmen and not only mathematicians. > >> > > > > I think that very few mathematicians use AOO at all. > > Even in the industry (in which I work for almost 15 years), MS Excel is > > not used to perform high level calculations. Even the nice charts we can > > see from complex tests are in fact exports from dedicated software that > > just give the numbers and let MS Excel draw the chart with all the bells > > and whistles needed (secondary grid, axis, legends, ...). > > Real calculation is made with specific applications, often developed by > > the companies to be sure they master the process. > > > > +1. I remember a conference (I'm physicist) on which one person presented > charts made with excel. One of the senior scientist on the audience then > said "you are masochist, don't you?" > > Regards > Ricardo My thinking is the Calc should return the mathematically correct answer. Consider a parallel case: suppose some other widely used spreadsheet was to define Pi as 3 (following the Indiana Pi Bill, bill #246 of the 1897 sitting of the Indiana General Assembly), ar to say that 2+2=5, should Calc follow? No, we should be correct; it is open to anyone who doesn't like this to use another application. > > > > - In 3.4.1, "=0 ^ 0" returns 1 > >>> - In 4.0, as patched by Pedro (see issue), "=0 ^ 0" would return an error > >>> - According to ODF, valid results are 0, 1, error > >>> > >> > >> In other words, the results we were giving before were entirely valid. > >> > > > > It just means that an acceptable shortcut was used. Giving 'error' would > > be valid too (regarding the ODF compliance). > > But I would not say that mathematics POV 1 as a result is valid. Even if > > some tend to think that 1 is OK. > > > > > > > > Microsoft has gone decades with treating the year 1900 as a leap year. > >> Should we? > >> > > > > Agreed, who cares what MS Excel does? It should not dictate what AOO > > should do. > > > > > > > > - We lose backwards compatibility if someone was relying on the fact that > >>> OpenOffice returns 1 as the result of "=0 ^ 0" > >>> > >> > >> Correct. The fact is we have returned 1 for this calculation for over > >> a decade. Whether mathematicians think it is right or wrong (and they > >> do not all agree), that is what we did. So changing it now has the > >> potential to break real user spreadsheets. So this is a serious > >> change. > >> > > > > First, how many users would face such a problem when both the base and > > exponent are null??? > > Again, real maths are not done in spreadsheets. So it's very likely the > > 0^0 cases would not break that many sheets and with an error, users will be > > able to spot quickly the issue and adapt to prevent that situation to be > > calculated. > > > > Second, and that's my main point here: you're angry about such a minor > > change when you don't mind breaking the backward compatibility of the whole > > extensions eco-system? See: http://www.mail-archive.com/** > > a...@openoffice.apache.org/**msg00107.html<http://www.mail-archive.com/api@openoffice.apache.org/msg00107.html> > > I'm lost about the priorities... and how end-users fit in your agenda. > > > > Hagar > > -- Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie>
