https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=162598
Buovjaga <ilmari.lauhakan...@libreoffice.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC| |ilmari.lauhakangas@libreoff
| |ice.org
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #6 from Buovjaga <ilmari.lauhakan...@libreoffice.org> ---
I tested in office.com's Excel and it outputs by default your expected "53 for
all" result. Per the suggestion from ady, testing reveals that the same can be
achieved in Calc with
=WEEKNUM_EXCEL2003(A2;1)
(In reply to Fred from comment #4)
> I can see I was wrong in that regard, at least. I apologize. I will not
> pursue this further and go back to using other programs that behave
> consistently and whose community is not condescending.
I am unable to locate condescension in ady's comments. Please keep an open mind
when reading replies from others.
As explained in the help for WEEKNUM_EXCEL2003:
"The WEEKNUM_EXCEL2003 function is designed to calculate week numbers exactly
as Microsoft Excel 2003 did. Use the WEEKNUM function for ODF OpenFormula and
Excel 2010 compatibility, or ISOWEEKNUM function when you just need ISO 8601
week numbers."
So Excel in 2024 actually still calculates as it did in 2003. Indeed, testing
with Excel's ISOWEEKNUM function I get the exact same result as Calc's
ISOWEEKNUM.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/isoweeknum-function-1c2d0afe-d25b-4ab1-8894-8d0520e90e0e
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/weeknum-function-e5c43a03-b4ab-426c-b411-b18c13c75340
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
