Hi Eike,
>Huh? Accidentally hit the delete line key in your editor? No, I did a git pull -r whilst working on the code and forgot to update this file. Should have seen it, though. >Using a short here and incrementing it for values!=0 may easily overflow >if ranges are passed. A better approach would be to use the C++ ^ xor >operator, e.g. > short nRes = 0; > nRes ^= (PopDouble() != 0.0); True, I followed the ODFF definition too literally. repeated XORing is identical and more in line with the code in ScAnd() and ScOr(). >This does not work. Excel doesn't know the XOR function so there is no >function identifier available. Inventing a value like 355 also does not >work, the values have to be those that Excel uses. So, ... >... just leave the function in that section then at least Calc can use >it if the .xls is reopened. Here I couldn't check Excel and guessed (wrongly) that Excel would have an XOR function. >With a few changes I think we'd have a working implementation. Please >try and test. I will build and test with the changes you propose and submit a new patch. >Btw, instead of reusing fdo#50488 for all new implementations I'd prefer >if we created a new bug once we have a function ready and make fdo#50488 >depend on the new bug to easily get a list of solutions. Otherwise when >committing a change with fdo#50488 in the commit summary we'd add >a target to that bug that wouldn't match the real release when a new >function will be available. All right. I created bug 50882 for the XOR function and will create other bug for other functions (I hope I entered the dependancy correct). >Keep up the good work :) I'm looking forward ot the corrrected patch. I'll do my best :) Winfried _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
