On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> ----- Messaggio originale ----- >>> Da: Rob Weir >> ... >>>> >>>> OOo already has plenty of functions that give backwards >>>> incompatible results with previous versions of OOo and >>>> Symphony (which is rather crappy). atanh, asinh, erf, >>>> everything in SAL has needed continued revisions. >>>> >>> >>> I have not seen anything that took a legitimate formula and changed it >>> to an error. I'm not ab absolutist. I'm willing to consider changes >>> at the 8th decimal points. But not gross level breaks in >>> compatibility. >>> >> >> Please note that we don't return an error: this is not something that will >> cause >> core dumps or affect stability: we return Not a Number (NaN), which is more >> in line with the mathematical behavior of the real function and signals >> the end user that he likely made has to revisit his formulation (all very >> good >> IMHO). >> >> The distinction is important. I surely didn't introduce a bug. >> >> >>>>> Finally, treating 0^0 == 1 is very common in programming languages and >>>>> spreadsheets, being the value returned by OpenOffice since 1.0, as >>>>> well as by Calligra Sheets, Google Docs, Symphony, LibreOffice, Java, >>>>> C, and .NET. Anyone arguing that the value is incorrect faces a >>>>> mountain of contrary opinion and practice. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So far you have failed to produce an example of reasonable use where >>>> such incompatibility is evident. >>>> >>> >>> For purposes of a veto I only need to show that I have a technical >>> objection. >>> >> >> And I don't see a valid technical objection, just different criteria. >> >> Now, it is probably not fair for me to judge if your technical objection >> is valid or not. It surely doesn't fall within the common examples ( >> does not open a security exposure, negatively affects performance, >> etc) >> > > You have two vetos. Are you going to revert or shall I do it for you? > > You are welcome to continue the discussion all you want, but that > should be done with the change reverted first. >
And I should say that I'm happy to help if you or anyone else wishes to introduce a "warning mode" or "formula lint" or similar feature that can be optionally enabled to check for possible inadvertent user errors. -Rob > -Rob > >> There should probably be an objective judge for these things (the PMC?) >> but it is not defined within the Apache procedures. >> >> Pedro. >>
