The current behavior is in compliance with the ODF 1.2 OpenFormula specification. In that context, the current result for POWER(0,0) is not a bug.
The fact that 0^0 is not defined (nor are 0^-n values) in mathematics (although some define them for various conveniences) does not mean it can't be defined in a computational procedure, which is what POWER(x,y) specifies characteristics of. The discrepancy with respect to mathematics is troublesome, but only if the computational procedure's definition is relied upon as a mathematical fact (e.g., in proving theorems, such as 0/0 = 1). I prefer Pedro's solution, which is to produce an error value for POWER(0,0) and also have greater interoperability with another important implementation. That is also in compliance with the ODF 1.2 OpenFormula specification. It also prevents the inference of unsupportable mathematical facts by computational definition. There is clearly no consensus to making that change. This is what CTR is about. It would have been what RTC were about, had the proposal been made before the patch. This thread is the R part either way. I don't recommend having a ballot on the proposed change, and I don't know what (non-binding) vote I would cast were one held. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:12 To: dennis.hamil...@acm.org; dev@openoffice.apache.org Cc: dwhyt...@gmail.com; pesce...@apache.org Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0 Hello; I don't understand, I saw a bug (erroneous result returned by a function) and I fixed it respecting the standards, thereby enhancing interperability with the market leader. I am aware that Rob has a different point of view here but so far neither him nor Stephen Hawking has explained how the change would be incorrect and no example where someone has been affected by this change has been provided. Has the patch been vetoed, and if so on what basis? Pedro. >________________________________ > Da: Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> >A: dev@openoffice.apache.org >Cc: dwhyt...@gmail.com; pesce...@apache.org; 'Pedro Giffuni' <p...@apache.org> >Inviato: Martedì 12 Febbraio 2013 13:11 >Oggetto: RE: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0 > >RESOLUTION OF THE PROPOSAL > >The proposed change was made under CTR (Commit then Review). There has been >a subsequent review and, as Don points out, the discussion has been lengthy >and vocal. > >The objective is to achieve consensus. I believe it is clear that there is >no consensus on the proposed change and the proposal fails. > >I can't speak for the AOO PMC. It would be useful if Andreas helped wrap >this up. If the lack of consensus is affirmed, Pedro can revert the change >and adjust the Bugzilla issue. > >THE ESSENCE OF THE PROPOSAL > >The proposal is to enact the breaking change as described on >the Community Wiki at ><https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes > >. > >It is under Changes that Impact Backward Compatibility, Calc and OpenFormula >Support. > >"Exponentiation > >"The current version of Calc produces 1 for POWER(0,0). This is one of the >implementation-defined results that is permitted by ODF 1.2 OpenFormula. > >"It is proposed to change POWER(0,0) to result in #VALUE!. This is also >permitted as the implementation-defined result. This is also compatible >with Excel and the Excel 2013 support for ODF 1.2 OpenFormula in .ods >Spreadsheets. ..." > >OUTCOME > >The proposed change is tracked in Bugzilla Issue #114430, >< https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=114430>. > >A patch to implement this proposal is already included in the SVN. >If the proposal is not accepted as the result of CTR review, the >Issue will be closed and the patch reverted. > >- Dennis > >-----Original Message----- >From: Donald Whytock [mailto:dwhyt...@gmail.com] >Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 09:20 >To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0 > >...So I got curious, and I paged back in my email archive, and it >seems this is the biggest AOO dev thread since the graduation vote >back in early September. > >At this point, does anyone care enough about changing the status quo >as to put up a coherent proposal to be voted on? > >Don > > > >
