To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=26022
User oc changed the following:
What|Old value |New value
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=26022
User oc changed the following:
What|Old value |New value
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=26022
User er changed the following:
What|Old value |New value
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=26022
User er changed the following:
What|Old value |New value
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=26022
User er changed the following:
What|Old value |New value
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=26022
User er changed the following:
What|Old value |New value
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=26022
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 19 02:33:35 -0700
2005 ---
Hi Kohei,
Well done!
And yes, 2.0.1 is more appropriate.
Thanks
Eike
---
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=26022
User kohei changed the following:
What|Old value |New value
==
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=26022
User kohei changed the following:
What|Old value |New value
==
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=26022
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jul 17 15:12:46 -0700
2005 ---
A typo :P
'without a reduced risk' => 'with a reduced rick'
-
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=26022
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jul 17 15:10:56 -0700
2005 ---
The trick I did is this.
In the old algorithm, the poisson variable was computed a
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=26022
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jul 17 15:00:43 -0700
2005 ---
Compile the test program by
g++ -o poisson poisson.cpp
and run it with two argu
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=26022
User kohei changed the following:
What|Old value |New value
==
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=26022
User kohei changed the following:
What|Old value |New value
==
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=26022
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jul 17 14:27:50 -0700
2005 ---
I have a solution. Let me prepare a patch, and a demo program.
Kohei
---
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=26022
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jul 17 13:03:18 -0700
2005 ---
It all comes down to this (in python interactive shell):
>>> import math
>>> print
16 matches
Mail list logo