Hi Eike,
>No, I proposed (or at least I think I did, that's what I meant anyway ;-)
>to introduce a new / change the UI names, and only the UI names,
>depending on the number of arguments encountered during reading a file.
>There'll be only one CEILING for the file format and never another one.
(
Hi Winfried,
On Friday, 2013-12-06 08:26:00 +0100, Winfried Donkers wrote:
> >> And if this can be done, can't we do this the other way round as well?
> >Sure, but we don't want that ;-)
> >> I mean using the function CEILING in the UI and saving it as CEILING or
> >> CEILING_ODF depending on th
Hi Eike,
>> formula/source/core/resource/core_resource.src has a one-to-one relation of
>> opcode and function name.
>> Can you tell me how to map a function in a saved ODF document to one or
>> another function?
>Has to be done as special cases in the compiler, when compiling probably
>in Form
Hi Winfried,
On Wednesday, 2013-12-04 09:39:57 +0100, Winfried Donkers wrote:
> >>>1) for the next release (4.3) implement a second function named a little
> >>> different in the UI (e.g. CEILING_ODF) with the correct handling of
> >>> parameters, do not offer it in the FunctionWizard yet (th
Hi Eike,
>> I shall have a look at the code and see if your stepped approach is easy to
>> apply. Also, I shall have a look if and how this has effect on the Excel
>> 2010 functions
>> CEILING.PRECISE, ISO.CEILING and FLOOR.PRECISE.
>It might in future if we want to map those (or some) to their O
Hi Winfried,
On Tuesday, 2013-12-03 09:52:04 +0100, Winfried Donkers wrote:
> I shall have a look at the code and see if your stepped approach is easy to
> apply. Also, I shall have a look if and how this has effect on the Excel 2010
> functions
> CEILING.PRECISE, ISO.CEILING and FLOOR.PRECISE.
Hi Eike,
>Actually the risk is quite low, as every release would introduce
>a self-maintained state. To shorten things the final cut could be done
>at every step if the sequence turned out to be unmaintainable.
You obviously have thought about it more than I have ;)
>Fortunately we do have some
Hi Winfried,
On Friday, 2013-11-29 07:55:44 +0100, Winfried Donkers wrote:
> >> What is the best way to proceed?
> >What follows is just a brainstorm, there may be quirks..
> That looks like a long way to go (and IMHO we should include
> WEEKNUM/ISOWEEKNUM too, then).
Yes, of course, and FLOOR
Hi Eike,
>> What is the best way to proceed?
>What follows is just a brainstorm, there may be quirks..
[..]
That looks like a long way to go (and IMHO we should include WEEKNUM/ISOWEEKNUM
too, then).
I am beginning to think (call it a brain wavelet, anyway far from a brain
storm, I'm carefull
Hi Winfried,
On Thursday, 2013-11-28 12:23:56 +0100, Winfried Donkers wrote:
> >The problem I have here is that with CEILING() and FLOOR() the second
> >argument (significance) is optional
> >and has its default value (1 or -1) depending on the sign of the first
> >argument (value).
> >How do
Hi Eike,
>The problem I have here is that with CEILING() and FLOOR() the second argument
>(significance) is optional
>and has its default value (1 or -1) depending on the sign of the first
>argument (value).
>How do I obtain this value in formula/source/core/api/token.cxx
>FormulaMissingConte
11 matches
Mail list logo
