Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [Calc] Relative references behavior for worksheets
> Ah! My response was based on entering the whole formula through the keyboard. > That's my modus operandi (sp?). > > You're talking about using the mouse to generate references. I'll back away > as I have nothing useful to say about your method. > > -- > Jim > Apologies for not being clear enough. Indeed, I am talking about the default behavior when not explicitly typing in the formula. This includes clicking on sheets, cells, and even external documents, and it includes wizards / assistance. Some users are used to type-in the whole formula, or edit "by hand". Some users are used to formula wizards / assistance and mouse (click, drag, select, fill...). For some users, this is especially relevant when using complex long formulas involving multiple sheets, multiple ranges of cells, or multiple cells, as it reduces the chances of typos. Regards, Ady. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] libreoffice issue: libreoffice for android crashed
Sorry Chengyi Lin that i have no answers but your questions raise questions of my own. Does LibreOffice for Android have its own mailing list? How far advanced is the project? -- Jim -Original Message- From: "林承益" To: users Sent: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 5:04 Subject: [libreoffice-users] libreoffice issue: libreoffice for android crashed Hi,deer; I meet a problem after I builded the libreoffcie-core (git from git://anongit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core ) with android version in winxp x86 platform by ant. I pushed the LibreOfficeUIActivity.apk into my android mobiephone in android 4.4.4, opened a dox or xml file ,the libreoffcie crashed. The logs as follows: 04-16 16:07:03.410: E/org.mozilla.gecko.gfx.LayerView(25414): ### Creating GL thread! 04-16 16:07:03.470: E/lo-bootstrap(25414): lo_apkentry: File assets/unpack/etc/fonts/fonts.conf is compressed 04-16 16:07:03.470: E/lo-bootstrap(25414): extract_files: Could not find /assets/unpack/etc/fonts/fonts.conf in .apk 04-16 16:07:03.470: E/lo-bootstrap(25414): lo_apkentry: File assets/unpack/program/sofficerc is compressed 04-16 16:07:03.470: E/lo-bootstrap(25414): extract_files: Could not find /assets/unpack/program/sofficerc in .apk 04-16 16:07:03.885: E/lo-bootstrap(25414): lo_apkentry: File assets/program/unorc is compressed 04-16 16:07:03.890: A/libc(25414): Fatal signal 11 (SIGSEGV) at 0x (code=1), thread 25587 (Thread-1546) would you give me some tips for this issue, thanks for a lot > Best Regards > = > E-mail：chengyi@keywie.com -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [Calc] Relative references behavior for worksheets
> > I don't know about Andreas, but when I read your original steps: > > 3_ In Sheet2 -> A1 : =Sheet1.A1 > I thought you meant type "=Sheet1.A1" in cell A1 of Sheet2, and expected > that to behave as an absolute reference (which would be inconsistent > with row and column references). From the above description, about > "default behaviour" giving "=$Sheet1.A1", it sounds like you're talking > about the behaviour when clicking on a cell as a shortcut to creating a > reference? Correct, I was referring to "clicking" on other sheets, and their cells. I have just sent another email to make it more clear. Apologies for the confusion. > > When typing a formula directly, it's reasonable to expect the user to be > responsible for getting the syntax right, including using $ to create > absolute references where necessary. It may be more reasonable to expect > that references generated by clicking in cells be tailored to the more > common need - whatever that may be. I can imagine working out what's > most common isn't be easy though, and will probably never please > everyone ;o) Indeed, explicitly typing a formula should be respected. If users explicitly type-in "$A$1", or "A$1", or "$A1", Calc respects it (i.e. it does not change it to relative references). If users explicitly type-in "$Sheet1.A1", or "Sheet.$A$1", or whatever, then Calc should definitely respect the input. I think we all agree that this is correct, adequate and expected. > > Personally, I don't often copy entire sheets, and when I do I probably > do usually want absolute references to other sheets as you suggest. On > the other hand, I can also see the use of relative sheet references, > e.g. for things where there's a sheet for each month with totals carried > over from one month to the next. I couldn't really say which is the more > common use overall, and therefore which should be the default. Another > consideration is that changing the current behaviour may confuse those > who are used to the way it works at the moment and find it convenient. > Certainly having relative references to sheets is useful. I am not saying it is not. My issue is about the _default_ behavior. I could understand the potential inconvenience with current users of Calc, perhaps already expecting the "unusual" (as of other spreadsheet programs) behavior. To be clear, I am not expecting from Calc to change current formulas, or any content. I would expect to change the default behavior for new editions. If a user edits an old Calc document, what was done before is "done", but IMHO in the same document the new behavior for new editions / new formulas should be as I am suggesting (and as other programs already do / behave). Moreover, considering the lack of features in Calc for multiple-sheets documents, my guess would be that such change in the default behavior would be more than welcome by experienced users. But, I could understand such change could be considered somewhat controversial by someone. So, as an alternative, I would suggest introducing an option, so the user could select which kind of references should be used by _default_ for sheets: either relative (as Calc behaves currently), or absolute ones (as any other program I know). Similar options regarding the _default_ behavior could also be added for "cells' columns" and for "cells' rows", or for "cells". > > By changing the _default_ behavior: > > _ users would get the "traditional" (expected) behavior; > > Unless it's changed recently, it seems "traditional" for LibreOffice > (and therefore probably "expected" for at least some of its users) is to > create relative sheet references. > I meant "traditional" as in spreadsheet programs that are being used for more than 2 decades. "Traditional" for "old" users of spreadsheet programs. I guess you are correct about "traditional" being different when talking about Calc (which is in fact the conflict I am talking about). I am focusing on users and practical functionality, more than in the program (Calc). As of the more common / frequent use of relative or absolute references for sheets, we probably cannot really know. And yet, since it is easier to correct (in case the user really needs such correction) from absolute to relative references to sheets than the other way around, the suggested change in default behavior makes at least some sense. There is a reason why this issue keeps coming back to forums and alike, and even reported as if the behavior would be an actual bug (IMO, it is an inadequate default behavior, but it is not a complete "bug", but close to it :). Regards, Ady. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to th
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [Calc] Relative references behavior for worksheets
Ah! My response was based on entering the whole formula through the keyboard. That's my modus operandi (sp?). You're talking about using the mouse to generate references. I'll back away as I have nothing useful to say about your method. -- Jim -Original Message- From: Ady To: users@global.libreoffice.org Sent: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:09 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [Calc] Relative references behavior for worksheets > Replicating your steps, I get a copy of Sheet2 at position #1 and any > relative reference to the previous sheet needs to raise a #REF! error > because you told me to reference a cell on the previous sheet. The error is > perfectly clear, wanted and informative. There is nothing wrong with errors. > Errors are not a slap in your face. They are not errors because you are > stupid. I can not see any error in the application. Everything works as > expected. If you reference something something irreferenciable you get a > #REF! error. > I seem to have a problem explaining the matter. I do understand how it works. I understand the error. I understand why it is giving this error. I am not complaining about receiving an error. I'll try to explain my point in a different way. Let's assume the following procedure: 1_ Click on A2. 2_ Type in an equal sign, "=". 3_ Click on A1. 4_ Press [Enter] 5_ Click on A2. The resulting formula is: A2: =A1 The default behavior, as seen in this simple procedure, is that cells are referenced with relative notation. If the resulting formula would had been (by default and with no additional steps/help): A2: =$A$1 we would had concluded that the default behavior was absolute references. But we know this is not the default behavior, and users take advantage of this. All spreadsheet programs that I know of behave in this same way. To receive a formula with absolute references in Calc we would need some extra step(s) (e.g. [Shift-F4]). Now let's repeat the procedure, with a slight difference: 1_ Click on Sheet2.A2. 2_ Type in an equal sign, "=". 3_ Click on Sheet1. 4_ Click on Sheet1.A1 5_ Press [Enter] 6_ Click on Sheet2. 7_ Click on Sheet2.A2. The resulting formula is: Sheet2.A2: =Sheet1.A1 Here, once again, the cell references are, by default, relative. Since we now involved multiple sheets in the formula, the resulting formula includes the sheet(s) as part of the reference. And we also see that, by default, the reference to "Sheet1" is also a relative one. Here is where Calc goes differently than other spreadsheet programs, and it is here where users (that are used to other spreadsheet programs) are having problems (and even reporting this behavior as a bug, multiple times already, since they don't understand why it is failing, considering that they are used to a different default behavior). When using other spreadsheet programs, the resulting formula for the last procedure would had been: "absolute reference for 'Sheet1' and relative reference for its 'A1' cell". Or, using Calc's notation: Sheet2.A2: =$Sheet1.A1 (note the "$"). What I am trying to convey is that Calc should change the default behavior for referencing sheets, so to behave as other spreadsheet programs do. I am not saying that: Sheet2.A2: =Sheet1.A1 is wrong, or that I don't understand the "#REF!" error, or that I don't understand why the error is being generated after the copy+paste procedure I described in my initial email. I am saying that the _default_ behavior should be to obtain absolute references to sheets (while keeping relative references to their cells). I am not suggesting to change the meaning of the "$" in front of the sheet. I am not suggesting to change the behavior of the "REF!" error nor its meaning. I _am_ suggesting that, by default, the sheets in Calc should be using the "$" in front of them. If a user wants to use relative notation for sheets, then such result should had been obtained by adding some step (e.g. explicitly deleting the "$" in front of the sheet reference), instead of obtaining a relative reference to the sheet by default, as it is now. By changing the default behavior regarding default references to sheets, Calc would be simply imitating what other worksheet programs already do, and less "REF!" situation would be encountered by users. Additionally, it is easier to replace absolute references to sheets with relative references to sheets, whereas it can be very difficult to find and correct every "REF!" in complex workbooks. It is the *default* behavior of "references to sheets" that I am talking about. Hopefully I am making it more clear now. Now, if my experience with other spreadsheet programs (as I described it here) is different than other users here in the list, I would like to know about it. If the tests / steps I have presented in this email thread cannot be replicated by others, or if the default behavior seen by others is different than what I am seeing, I would really apprecia
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [Calc] Relative references behavior for worksheets
> Replicating your steps, I get a copy of Sheet2 at position #1 and any > relative reference to the previous sheet needs to raise a #REF! error > because you told me to reference a cell on the previous sheet. The error is > perfectly clear, wanted and informative. There is nothing wrong with errors. > Errors are not a slap in your face. They are not errors because you are > stupid. I can not see any error in the application. Everything works as > expected. If you reference something something irreferenciable you get a > #REF! error. > I seem to have a problem explaining the matter. I do understand how it works. I understand the error. I understand why it is giving this error. I am not complaining about receiving an error. I'll try to explain my point in a different way. Let's assume the following procedure: 1_ Click on A2. 2_ Type in an equal sign, "=". 3_ Click on A1. 4_ Press [Enter] 5_ Click on A2. The resulting formula is: A2: =A1 The default behavior, as seen in this simple procedure, is that cells are referenced with relative notation. If the resulting formula would had been (by default and with no additional steps/help): A2: =$A$1 we would had concluded that the default behavior was absolute references. But we know this is not the default behavior, and users take advantage of this. All spreadsheet programs that I know of behave in this same way. To receive a formula with absolute references in Calc we would need some extra step(s) (e.g. [Shift-F4]). Now let's repeat the procedure, with a slight difference: 1_ Click on Sheet2.A2. 2_ Type in an equal sign, "=". 3_ Click on Sheet1. 4_ Click on Sheet1.A1 5_ Press [Enter] 6_ Click on Sheet2. 7_ Click on Sheet2.A2. The resulting formula is: Sheet2.A2: =Sheet1.A1 Here, once again, the cell references are, by default, relative. Since we now involved multiple sheets in the formula, the resulting formula includes the sheet(s) as part of the reference. And we also see that, by default, the reference to "Sheet1" is also a relative one. Here is where Calc goes differently than other spreadsheet programs, and it is here where users (that are used to other spreadsheet programs) are having problems (and even reporting this behavior as a bug, multiple times already, since they don't understand why it is failing, considering that they are used to a different default behavior). When using other spreadsheet programs, the resulting formula for the last procedure would had been: "absolute reference for 'Sheet1' and relative reference for its 'A1' cell". Or, using Calc's notation: Sheet2.A2: =$Sheet1.A1 (note the "$"). What I am trying to convey is that Calc should change the default behavior for referencing sheets, so to behave as other spreadsheet programs do. I am not saying that: Sheet2.A2: =Sheet1.A1 is wrong, or that I don't understand the "#REF!" error, or that I don't understand why the error is being generated after the copy+paste procedure I described in my initial email. I am saying that the _default_ behavior should be to obtain absolute references to sheets (while keeping relative references to their cells). I am not suggesting to change the meaning of the "$" in front of the sheet. I am not suggesting to change the behavior of the "REF!" error nor its meaning. I _am_ suggesting that, by default, the sheets in Calc should be using the "$" in front of them. If a user wants to use relative notation for sheets, then such result should had been obtained by adding some step (e.g. explicitly deleting the "$" in front of the sheet reference), instead of obtaining a relative reference to the sheet by default, as it is now. By changing the default behavior regarding default references to sheets, Calc would be simply imitating what other worksheet programs already do, and less "REF!" situation would be encountered by users. Additionally, it is easier to replace absolute references to sheets with relative references to sheets, whereas it can be very difficult to find and correct every "REF!" in complex workbooks. It is the *default* behavior of "references to sheets" that I am talking about. Hopefully I am making it more clear now. Now, if my experience with other spreadsheet programs (as I described it here) is different than other users here in the list, I would like to know about it. If the tests / steps I have presented in this email thread cannot be replicated by others, or if the default behavior seen by others is different than what I am seeing, I would really appreciate receiving feedback about it, because it would mean that I could change the default behavior in my own setup, without waiting for developers to do anything. Thank you in advance, Ady. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lis
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [Calc] Relative references behavior for worksheets
Ady wrote: Having sheets named Sheet1, Sheet2, Sheet3 etc. any reference from Sheet2 to Sheet1 or from Sheet3 to Sheet2 refers to the _previous_ sheet. When you copy this reference to the first sheet, then there is no previous sheet which is why you get #REF!.X1 Any absolute reference to $Sheet1 refers to the first sheet. Since there is always a first sheet, this reference can be copied anywhere. When you copy an absolute reference to $Sheet3 (3rd sheet) into a document with only 1 or 2 sheets you get #REF!.X1 because there is no third sheet. You are explaining the difference between absolute and relative references to worksheets. I already know how it works. I am interested in users replicating the test I presented and commenting on whether they would rather see a different default behavior in Calc (as it happens in other spreadsheet programs). Let me express the matter with different words. Currently, the default behavior would give: Sheet2.A1: =Sheet1.A1 What I am saying is that the _default_ behavior is problematic, inconvenient and unexpected by users. Instead, the _default_ behavior should give: Sheet2.A1: =$Sheet1.A1 Meaning, the _default_ behavior for cells should remain, using relative references, but the _default_ behavior for sheets should be modified, to use absolute references (note the "$" in front of the sheet name, and no "$" for the column nor for the row of the cell). I don't know about Andreas, but when I read your original steps: 3_ In Sheet2 -> A1 : =Sheet1.A1 I thought you meant type "=Sheet1.A1" in cell A1 of Sheet2, and expected that to behave as an absolute reference (which would be inconsistent with row and column references). From the above description, about "default behaviour" giving "=$Sheet1.A1", it sounds like you're talking about the behaviour when clicking on a cell as a shortcut to creating a reference? When typing a formula directly, it's reasonable to expect the user to be responsible for getting the syntax right, including using $ to create absolute references where necessary. It may be more reasonable to expect that references generated by clicking in cells be tailored to the more common need - whatever that may be. I can imagine working out what's most common isn't be easy though, and will probably never please everyone ;o) Personally, I don't often copy entire sheets, and when I do I probably do usually want absolute references to other sheets as you suggest. On the other hand, I can also see the use of relative sheet references, e.g. for things where there's a sheet for each month with totals carried over from one month to the next. I couldn't really say which is the more common use overall, and therefore which should be the default. Another consideration is that changing the current behaviour may confuse those who are used to the way it works at the moment and find it convenient. By changing the _default_ behavior: _ users would get the "traditional" (expected) behavior; Unless it's changed recently, it seems "traditional" for LibreOffice (and therefore probably "expected" for at least some of its users) is to create relative sheet references. _ there would be less confusion among users (sometimes seeing "#REF!" errors, and sometimes without understanding why their worksheets are failing); _ in case relative references to sheets are actually needed by a user, the correction is easier from absolute to relative notation than the other way around. I hope I am explaining my point clearer now. Regards, Ady. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] [Calc] Relative references behavior for worksheets
Hi Ady,
I have practically zero experience with "other spreadsheet" programs and such
experience as I do have has me comparing them against LO (or OOo) not vice
versa.
That said, it is my OPINION that intersheet references should be of the class
specified (absolute if entered with a leading $ and relative if entered naked).
If one or more new sheets are inserted or removed the sheet references should
be modified applying the same rules as are used with regard to column (row)
references when one or more columns (rows) are inserted or removed. Any
spreadsheet program (be it MSO Excel, KingSoft spreadsheet, or even OOo or LO
Calc) operates differently than this then IMNSHO they got it wrong.
Where am I wrong?
--
Jim
-Original Message-
From: Ady
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 6:45
Subject: [libreoffice-users] [Calc] Relative references behavior for worksheets
Hello,
I had the intention to file a bug report for Calc, but then I thought
that maybe I should first ask for some user's feedback.
I would like to know if the behavior I am about to describe can be
replicated with several versions of LibreOffice and/or under different
configurations / scenarios / OSes. Other comments are also welcome, of
course.
The following is the text of the bug report I was about to file in.
Apologies for its length; I have seen too many of these problems
already and I want to explain the problem (and its solution) as clear
as possible.
TIA,
Ady.
1_ New Calc spreadsheet (aka workbook).
2_ For this test, we need at least 2 Sheets ("Sheet1" and "Sheet2") in
the new spreadsheet document.
3_ In Sheet2 -> A1 : =Sheet1.A1
4_ Right click on the "Sheet2" tab and select "Move/Copy Sheet...".
5_ In the "Move/Copy Sheet" dialog, select "Copy", then OK.
6_ Select the new "Sheet2_2 , A1" cell.
7_ Note that the content of "Sheet2_2 , A1" is "=#REF!.A1", and the
result being displayed is "#REF!".
8_ Right click again on the "Sheet2" tab and select "Move/Copy
Sheet..." (as in step #4 above).
9_ In the "Move/Copy Sheet" dialog, select "Copy", select "move to end
position", then OK.
10_ Select the new "Sheet2_3 , A1" cell.
11_ Note that the content of "Sheet2_3 , A1" is (this time),
"=Sheet2.A1".
12_ Note that "Sheet2" has been copied to "Sheet2_3" with _relative_
references for _sheets_; e.g. "Sheet2_3 , A1" is not an exact copy of
"Sheet2 , A1", as "Sheet2_3 , A1" contains "=Sheet2.A1" (pasted with
relative notation for the _sheet_), instead of containing "Sheet1.A1"
(as it would had been expected in other spreadsheet programs).
This test shows that the Sheets are being treated with _relative_
(reference) notation by default, as cells are.
There seem to be similar reports about "named range of cells", and with
copies to another spreadsheet file (instead of copying inside the same
file, as my test here does).
Additionally, changing the name of the sheets, from "SheetN" to
something else, doesn't change this behavior.
Although I understand the potential advantage in some cases, this
concept and behavior of "relative" references to Sheets is inadequate.
We have relative notation in/for _cells_ because there is a certain
standard for their references, a "series". But this is not true for
Sheets, nor for a named range of cells for that matter.
At first sight, and based on the above test, someone could potentially
propose to only allow copying sheets "to the end"; but such idea would
be wrong too. In my sample test, I only used one formula, retrieving
data from one sheet "from the left" and then copying the sheet "to the
left" (in the typical LTR display). But I could have multiple sheets
and I could be retrieving data from surrounding sheets from both sides.
The relative notation in cells works everywhere in almost all cases.
Applying the same concept and *default* behavior to sheets and named
ranges of cells is inadequate. I consider this to be almost a bug, and
I am certainly not the only one.
Using the "relative notation" concept (and behavior) on anything other
than common cells should *not* be the default behavior, and such
possibility should be optionally and explicitly selected by the user
when performing each "copy+paste" action, or by means of the adequate
notation.
In other words, please leave the "relative notation" as default for
cells only, and as optional selectable possibility for sheets and for
named ranges of cells. The default notation for sheets should be
*absolute references*. In fact, the only references that should default
to relative notation should be references to cells, and any other
references should default to absolute notation.
Copying a Sheet already containing a formula pointing to another Sheet
should not generate "#REF!" errors. Sheets' references should be
inserted as _absolute_ notation by default.
The current default behavior is UNexpected by users (since other
Spreadsheet programs do not behave in th
[libreoffice-users] Re: [Calc] Relative references behavior for worksheets
Replicating your steps, I get a copy of Sheet2 at position #1 and any relative reference to the previous sheet needs to raise a #REF! error because you told me to reference a cell on the previous sheet. The error is perfectly clear, wanted and informative. There is nothing wrong with errors. Errors are not a slap in your face. They are not errors because you are stupid. I can not see any error in the application. Everything works as expected. If you reference something something irreferenciable you get a #REF! error. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Calc-Relative-references-behavior-for-worksheets-tp4146921p4146958.html Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] display
On 2015/04/23 0:44, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) Maybe increase the memory settings in LibreOffice? The defaults tend to be extremely low and on such a high-spec machine you can whack them right up. Tools - Options - Memory It sounds a bit like rendering issues so maybe the drivers for the graphics-'card' are not quite right. I'm very much not sure about any of that though! Regards from Tom :) On 22 April 2015 at 16:17, Thomas Blasejewicz wrote: Good night = morning from Japan I believe I did ask the same question in the past related to an installation on a Win XP machine: moving through documents (Writer) in LibreOffice while editing sometimes (constantly!) sort of blurrs/freezes the screen. That means, characters/lines/text sections "disappear", look like smeared ink or are displayer overlapping. The "problem" is solved, by switching to another Writer document and back. That's fine, but still rather stupid and happens ONLY with Writer (not yet noticed in Calc). Computer: just bought a new one, running Windows 8.1 (= a nightmare!!!), 8 GB RAM, 120 GB SSD = OS + 1 TB HDD and probably a whole lot of fancy high-tech stuff I not capable of understanding. Thank you. Just increasing the memory (from 50 MB to 200 MB for LO) did not work, but while playing around in "options", I found "View" -> "Use hardware acceleration". For now, that seems to improve things ... Graphics card, its driver etc. are things that have been put there by the manufacturer 2 weeks ago and I did not touch those. Here too I would like to think, that THEY know a lot better than I do ... -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] display
Hi :) Maybe increase the memory settings in LibreOffice? The defaults tend to be extremely low and on such a high-spec machine you can whack them right up. Tools - Options - Memory It sounds a bit like rendering issues so maybe the drivers for the graphics-'card' are not quite right. I'm very much not sure about any of that though! Regards from Tom :) On 22 April 2015 at 16:17, Thomas Blasejewicz wrote: > Good night = morning from Japan > I believe I did ask the same question in the past related to an > installation on a Win XP machine: > moving through documents (Writer) in LibreOffice while editing sometimes > (constantly!) sort of blurrs/freezes the screen. > That means, characters/lines/text sections "disappear", look like > smeared ink or are displayer overlapping. > The "problem" is solved, by switching to another Writer document and back. > That's fine, but still rather stupid and happens ONLY with Writer (not > yet noticed in Calc). > > Computer: just bought a new one, running Windows 8.1 (= a nightmare!!!), > 8 GB RAM, 120 GB SSD = OS + 1 TB HDD > and probably a whole lot of fancy high-tech stuff I not capable of > understanding. > > So, I would LOVE to believe, that there cannot be any sort of > "insufficient power". > > IS there a trick to convince the display to work smoothly??? > Thank you. > Thomas > > > -- > To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be > deleted > > -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[libreoffice-users] display
Good night = morning from Japan I believe I did ask the same question in the past related to an installation on a Win XP machine: moving through documents (Writer) in LibreOffice while editing sometimes (constantly!) sort of blurrs/freezes the screen. That means, characters/lines/text sections "disappear", look like smeared ink or are displayer overlapping. The "problem" is solved, by switching to another Writer document and back. That's fine, but still rather stupid and happens ONLY with Writer (not yet noticed in Calc). Computer: just bought a new one, running Windows 8.1 (= a nightmare!!!), 8 GB RAM, 120 GB SSD = OS + 1 TB HDD and probably a whole lot of fancy high-tech stuff I not capable of understanding. So, I would LOVE to believe, that there cannot be any sort of "insufficient power". IS there a trick to convince the display to work smoothly??? Thank you. Thomas -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[libreoffice-users] Unsubscribe
Sent from my iPhone -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: [Calc] Relative references behavior for worksheets
> Having sheets named Sheet1, Sheet2, Sheet3 etc. any reference from > Sheet2 to Sheet1 or from Sheet3 to Sheet2 refers to the _previous_ > sheet. When you copy this reference to the first sheet, then there is no > previous sheet which is why you get #REF!.X1 > Any absolute reference to $Sheet1 refers to the first sheet. Since there > is always a first sheet, this reference can be copied anywhere. When you > copy an absolute reference to $Sheet3 (3rd sheet) into a document with > only 1 or 2 sheets you get #REF!.X1 because there is no third sheet. > You are explaining the difference between absolute and relative references to worksheets. I already know how it works. I am interested in users replicating the test I presented and commenting on whether they would rather see a different default behavior in Calc (as it happens in other spreadsheet programs). Let me express the matter with different words. Currently, the default behavior would give: Sheet2.A1: =Sheet1.A1 What I am saying is that the _default_ behavior is problematic, inconvenient and unexpected by users. Instead, the _default_ behavior should give: Sheet2.A1: =$Sheet1.A1 Meaning, the _default_ behavior for cells should remain, using relative references, but the _default_ behavior for sheets should be modified, to use absolute references (note the "$" in front of the sheet name, and no "$" for the column nor for the row of the cell). By changing the _default_ behavior: _ users would get the "traditional" (expected) behavior; _ there would be less confusion among users (sometimes seeing "#REF!" errors, and sometimes without understanding why their worksheets are failing); _ in case relative references to sheets are actually needed by a user, the correction is easier from absolute to relative notation than the other way around. I hope I am explaining my point clearer now. Regards, Ady. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[libreoffice-users] Re: [Calc] Relative references behavior for worksheets
Having sheets named Sheet1, Sheet2, Sheet3 etc. any reference from Sheet2 to Sheet1 or from Sheet3 to Sheet2 refers to the _previous_ sheet. When you copy this reference to the first sheet, then there is no previous sheet which is why you get #REF!.X1 Any absolute reference to $Sheet1 refers to the first sheet. Since there is always a first sheet, this reference can be copied anywhere. When you copy an absolute reference to $Sheet3 (3rd sheet) into a document with only 1 or 2 sheets you get #REF!.X1 because there is no third sheet. -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] libreoffice issue: libreoffice for android crashed
Hi :) Sorry about the delay! It might be best to ask this question on our developers mailing list or irc (or is it iirc?) or something. It is a bit of an advanced question for most of us normal users! Apols and regards from Tom :) On 21 April 2015 at 10:02, 林承益 wrote: > Hi,deer; > > I meet a problem after I builded the libreoffcie-core (git from git:// > anongit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core ) with android version in winxp > x86 platform by ant. > I pushed the LibreOfficeUIActivity.apk into my android mobiephone in > android 4.4.4, opened a dox or xml file ,the > libreoffcie crashed. The logs as follows: > > 04-16 16:07:03.410: E/org.mozilla.gecko.gfx.LayerView(25414): ### Creating > GL thread! > 04-16 16:07:03.470: E/lo-bootstrap(25414): lo_apkentry: File > assets/unpack/etc/fonts/fonts.conf is compressed > 04-16 16:07:03.470: E/lo-bootstrap(25414): extract_files: Could not find > /assets/unpack/etc/fonts/fonts.conf in .apk > 04-16 16:07:03.470: E/lo-bootstrap(25414): lo_apkentry: File > assets/unpack/program/sofficerc is compressed > 04-16 16:07:03.470: E/lo-bootstrap(25414): extract_files: Could not find > /assets/unpack/program/sofficerc in .apk > 04-16 16:07:03.885: E/lo-bootstrap(25414): lo_apkentry: File > assets/program/unorc is compressed > 04-16 16:07:03.890: A/libc(25414): Fatal signal 11 (SIGSEGV) at 0x > (code=1), thread 25587 (Thread-1546) > > would you give me some tips for this issue, thanks for a lot > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards > > = > > E-mail：chengyi@keywie.com > -- > To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be > deleted > -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[libreoffice-users] [Calc] Relative references behavior for worksheets
Hello,
I had the intention to file a bug report for Calc, but then I thought
that maybe I should first ask for some user's feedback.
I would like to know if the behavior I am about to describe can be
replicated with several versions of LibreOffice and/or under different
configurations / scenarios / OSes. Other comments are also welcome, of
course.
The following is the text of the bug report I was about to file in.
Apologies for its length; I have seen too many of these problems
already and I want to explain the problem (and its solution) as clear
as possible.
TIA,
Ady.
1_ New Calc spreadsheet (aka workbook).
2_ For this test, we need at least 2 Sheets ("Sheet1" and "Sheet2") in
the new spreadsheet document.
3_ In Sheet2 -> A1 : =Sheet1.A1
4_ Right click on the "Sheet2" tab and select "Move/Copy Sheet...".
5_ In the "Move/Copy Sheet" dialog, select "Copy", then OK.
6_ Select the new "Sheet2_2 , A1" cell.
7_ Note that the content of "Sheet2_2 , A1" is "=#REF!.A1", and the
result being displayed is "#REF!".
8_ Right click again on the "Sheet2" tab and select "Move/Copy
Sheet..." (as in step #4 above).
9_ In the "Move/Copy Sheet" dialog, select "Copy", select "move to end
position", then OK.
10_ Select the new "Sheet2_3 , A1" cell.
11_ Note that the content of "Sheet2_3 , A1" is (this time),
"=Sheet2.A1".
12_ Note that "Sheet2" has been copied to "Sheet2_3" with _relative_
references for _sheets_; e.g. "Sheet2_3 , A1" is not an exact copy of
"Sheet2 , A1", as "Sheet2_3 , A1" contains "=Sheet2.A1" (pasted with
relative notation for the _sheet_), instead of containing "Sheet1.A1"
(as it would had been expected in other spreadsheet programs).
This test shows that the Sheets are being treated with _relative_
(reference) notation by default, as cells are.
There seem to be similar reports about "named range of cells", and with
copies to another spreadsheet file (instead of copying inside the same
file, as my test here does).
Additionally, changing the name of the sheets, from "SheetN" to
something else, doesn't change this behavior.
Although I understand the potential advantage in some cases, this
concept and behavior of "relative" references to Sheets is inadequate.
We have relative notation in/for _cells_ because there is a certain
standard for their references, a "series". But this is not true for
Sheets, nor for a named range of cells for that matter.
At first sight, and based on the above test, someone could potentially
propose to only allow copying sheets "to the end"; but such idea would
be wrong too. In my sample test, I only used one formula, retrieving
data from one sheet "from the left" and then copying the sheet "to the
left" (in the typical LTR display). But I could have multiple sheets
and I could be retrieving data from surrounding sheets from both sides.
The relative notation in cells works everywhere in almost all cases.
Applying the same concept and *default* behavior to sheets and named
ranges of cells is inadequate. I consider this to be almost a bug, and
I am certainly not the only one.
Using the "relative notation" concept (and behavior) on anything other
than common cells should *not* be the default behavior, and such
possibility should be optionally and explicitly selected by the user
when performing each "copy+paste" action, or by means of the adequate
notation.
In other words, please leave the "relative notation" as default for
cells only, and as optional selectable possibility for sheets and for
named ranges of cells. The default notation for sheets should be
*absolute references*. In fact, the only references that should default
to relative notation should be references to cells, and any other
references should default to absolute notation.
Copying a Sheet already containing a formula pointing to another Sheet
should not generate "#REF!" errors. Sheets' references should be
inserted as _absolute_ notation by default.
The current default behavior is UNexpected by users (since other
Spreadsheet programs do not behave in the same way) and it can easily
generate loss of data (especially in complex multi-sheet workbooks).
A different wording for this situation / proposal would be: when
building a formula pointing to cells from other sheets, the *default*
behavior in Calc should be that the sheet's reference should use
_absolute_ notation by default while keeping the default notation for
cells in _relative_ form. This is the default behavior I see in other
spreadsheet programs. The user should *not* have to manually convert
each reference to "absolute" notation for sheets while keeping the
"relative" notation for cells.
Please keep in mind that, after copy+pasting a sheet, correcting all
the resulting "#REF!" cells can be a complex task (and prone to
errors), whereas modifying references for sheets from absolute to
relative notation is much
easier.
TIA,
Ady.
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@globa
[libreoffice-users] Re: converting txt to dates
Am 21.04.2015 um 22:44 schrieb Joel Madero: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Cor Nouws wrote: > >> bhaumikdave wrote on 13-04-15 08:58: >> >>> Done. Now Excel will recognize it as date and will allow you to format >> cells >>> any date format as you wish. >> >> No idea what Excel does or not or what proper date handling would be >> most ideal. >> You may try this one however ;) >> >> >> http://extensions.libreoffice.org/extension-center/ct2n-convert-text-to-number-and-dates >> > > I think we should make this an easy hack to get it into core. The question > comes up relatively frequently and many times people are just confused as > to why numbers/dates aren't showing up right. > > Cor - your thoughts since you developed the extension? > > > Best, > Joel > > > You can't push dirty Basic hacks into the core. The extension may convert text into wrong values or nothing at all for the same reasons I've outlined. 13/5/2015 <--> 5/13/2015 <--> 13. Mai 2015 1.234 <--> 1,234 -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[libreoffice-users] Re: converting txt to dates
Am 14.04.2015 um 07:03 schrieb bhaumikdave: > I am using US Locale i.e. (English) US so it uses dd-mm-yy format. > > But your dates are in " mm-dd-yy" format. Inorder to convert 04-14-2015 to > 14th April, 2015 , I need to change Date and Time settings from Control > panel. > > I kept my US locale as it is and changed date format to "mm-dd-yy" and > converted your dates as 13-April-2015, 14-April-2015, and so on. > > Hope this is useful. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/converting-txt-to-dates-tp4143826p4146198.html > Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > Ah, you prefer using the Windows system panel for a simple text import? Would you find that setting on a Mac? And did you try out what Excel does when you do not adjust your system settings? No? It will import text and/or wrong dates with twisted months and days. Even the holy Excel is able to import wrong data when you are unaware of system settings. What is wrong with the locale setting right in front of your nose on the _text_import_dialog_ of LibreOffice where you can choose anything adequate without navigating the system panel? If you know, that my dates had been exported in German, you can easily import 13. Mai 2015|10.3256,98 Check "special numbers", German(Germany) language and | as column separator. I agree that the "special mumbers" option is misleading (if not obsolete) and that it should be checked by default, however ignoring any options will lead to errors sooner or later. In fact this option remains checked by default once it has been used. In the rare cases where this option does the wrong thing, you may turn it of or explicitly mark the column as "Text". -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Heads up -- LibreOffice 5.0 is on the horizion
Hi :) LibreOffice can already be themed and there are quite a lot out there already. Tim of Kracked Press made at least one. You can use Firefox ones but they call them "Personas". There are already a couple of space ones but i think Jorge's is really fantastic and would be a good addition to them. Wrt "serious" and corporate vs private - i don't think anyone was really suggesting that private users are any less serious. I'm sure we have all seen some private individuals being much more serious or dedicated where corporates maybe sometimes lose their focus sometimes. It's just difficult to express the differences between private and more public use. Private usage may sometimes allow people to be more expressive and personalise things a lot more without having to "fit in" with other people's peculiarities. Yes, great idea about possibly using Jorge's concept for a poster too. There are a lot of events of widely varying scale and this concept might be good for one of them or for something else Jorge might be involved in. Regards from Tom :) On 21 April 2015 at 22:45, Cor Nouws wrote: > Hi James, > > James E Lang wrote on 21-04-15 22:17: > > > IMO a design like this would be acceptable in a private user > > environment but not in many corporate environments. > > I would not dare to suggest to take private users less serious than > corporate users. > > > Maybe LibreOffice could consider offering two themes. > > Apart from that, it adds hassle in production and organising, confusion > maybe in getting, introduces communication issues, reduces recognition.. > > Sorry, I would definitely say no to this :) > > -- > Cor Nouws > GPD key ID: 0xB13480A6 - 591A 30A7 36A0 CE3C 3D28 A038 E49D 7365 B134 80A6 > - vrijwilliger http://nl.libreoffice.org > - volunteer http://www.libreoffice.org > - The Document Foundation Membership Committee Member > > -- > To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be > deleted > -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
