suvayu ali <fatkasuvayu+li...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Charles, > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Charles <mill...@verizon.net> wrote: > > All I was trying to say that example should be corrected since it is > > confusing. > > And here I was thinking you are asking about the format specifier! :-p > > Since you have already put in the effort to correct the table, how about > submitting it as a patch to doc/org.texi? You could also take this > opportunity to improve the text somewhat. :) >
I replied to Charlie's original message but from the tenor of the replies here I gather nobody saw my message? But I just checked gmane and it's there, so I'm not sure any more: did anybody see it? Here's the message body again just in case: Charles <mill...@verizon.net> wrote: > I have searched the news groups concerning this and found nothing. > > I am attempting to learn the advance features for tables and could not > understand 29.7 as the result for $at=vmean(@-II..@-I);%.1f. > > I copied the table and formulas into a scratch org file, changed the > floating point to .2f and the result was 25.00, which I believe is > correct. I changed it back to .1f and 25.0 was the result. > > Is the result as given in the manual supposed to demonstrate some > concept that is not evident to me? > Good one. It *may* have been intended to illustrate the difference between rows marked with # and unmarked rows; e.g. if you go back and change a grade in Sam's row and press TAB, then the # rows are recalculated but the unmarked one is not. So the 29.7 might have been a (now incorrect) remnant of a previous calculation that would have been corrected in the next global recalculation. However, if that's the case, a more extensive explanation would certainly be welcome. Nick
