On 21/01/12 01:42, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
I believe that you intend to cause the following behavior:
date + numDate
date - num Date
date * num Double
date / num Double
date + dateDate [2]
date - date Double [3]
date * date Double
Hi Andrew,
My primary concerns
1. Change in behavior that may break existing code.
the intent of the patch is to restore the previous behaviour ( by
previous behaviour I mean before integration of the feature that
erroneously removed the 'special' processing for '+' for dates ).
On 2012-01-20 13:32, Noel Power wrote:
[*] table of behaviour in vba, pre the bug being introduced and post
patch
msoold behaviour present
date + numDate Date
On 01/20/2012 06:32 AM, Noel Power wrote:
Hi Andrew,
My primary concerns
1. Change in behavior that may break existing code.
the intent of the patch is to restore the previous behaviour ( by
previous behaviour I mean before integration of the feature that
erroneously removed the 'special'
On 20/01/12 13:40, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
On 01/20/2012 06:32 AM, Noel Power wrote:
note there is a mistake in the table below
[*] table of behaviour in vba, pre the bug being introduced and post
patch
msoold behaviour present
On 01/20/2012 10:30 AM, Noel Power wrote:
On 20/01/12 13:40, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
On 01/20/2012 06:32 AM, Noel Power wrote:
note there is a mistake in the table below
[*] table of behaviour in vba, pre the bug being introduced and post
patch
mso
On 01/16/2012 08:01 AM, Eike Rathke wrote:
Hi Noel,
On Friday, 2012-01-13 09:51:33 +, Noel Power wrote:
this change ( the variant ) is what is on master, here the
intention is as Andrew pointed out ( in a previous mail discussing
the regression ) to allow operations on date types return
On 01/19/2012 09:03 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
On 01/16/2012 08:01 AM, Eike Rathke wrote:
Hi Noel,
On Friday, 2012-01-13 09:51:33 +, Noel Power wrote:
this change ( the variant ) is what is on master, here the
intention is as Andrew pointed out ( in a previous mail discussing
On 01/17/2012 04:46 AM, Noel Power wrote:
On 16/01/12 16:59, Eike Rathke wrote:
b) not so risky ( I think ), and... would change the present
behaviour in consistent way for treatment of minus operator
-if( GetType() == SbxDATE || rOp.GetType() ==
SbxDATE )
+
On 16/01/12 16:59, Eike Rathke wrote:
b) not so risky ( I think ), and... would change the present
behaviour in consistent way for treatment of minus operator
-if( GetType() == SbxDATE || rOp.GetType() == SbxDATE )
+if( ( eOp == SbxPLUS || eOp ==
Hi Noel,
On Friday, 2012-01-13 09:51:33 +, Noel Power wrote:
this change ( the variant ) is what is on master, here the
intention is as Andrew pointed out ( in a previous mail discussing
the regression ) to allow operations on date types return dates (
regardless of the operation )
Hi Eike,
On 16/01/12 13:01, Eike Rathke wrote:
Hi Noel, On Friday, 2012-01-13 09:51:33 +, Noel Power wrote:
this change ( the variant ) is what is on master, here the intention
is as Andrew pointed out ( in a previous mail discussing the
regression ) to allow operations on date types
Hi Noel,
On Monday, 2012-01-16 16:11:14 +, Noel Power wrote:
Not every operation on date types should return a date,
I have to admit I was swayed by Andrew's point that letting the
operations just return Dates seems more consistent.Also it would
seem to me subtraction should at least
On 12/01/12 22:27, Michael Stahl wrote:
looking at the change, i notice that now it is independent of the
operation being performed, while the code that was originally removed
in adcba12537d047f5ad65334b65512615311cf872 checked for addition only
(as the comment says):
-//
Be good to get this in, afaict this shouldn't cause any problems
see attached patch
Noel
From 778c2ad1225ee3d1e9ac40ab584d8f5f428845fe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Noel Power noel.po...@novell.com
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:46:52 +
Subject: [PATCH] restore special DATE handling code for
On 12/01/12 16:55, Noel Power wrote:
Be good to get this in, afaict this shouldn't cause any problems
see attached patch
Noel
looking at the change, i notice that now it is independent of the
operation being performed, while the code that was originally removed in
16 matches
Mail list logo
