The last one (at least IMO) should be positive and equal to the (correct)
result of the first of the three examples, because
9094863431 = 9094863431J0
Cheers,
Louis
> On 20 Apr 2017, at 18:43, Juergen Sauermann
> wrote:
>
> Hi Kacper,
>
> maybe, but the ISO standard says (function And/LCM on
Hi Louis,
I see. I overlooked that the first and third example were similar.
Fixed in SVN 927.
/// Jürgen
On 04/21/2017 09:48 AM, Louis de
Forcrand wrote:
The last one (at least IMO) should
Hi,
Here is the patch for extended documentation for arithmetical functions
+,-,×,÷,*
Please take a look and take a look at the output, if the format is ok.
If it is ok I'll continue to write extended documentation for other
functions/operators with examples.
Index: src/Help.def
Just a suggestion - why not also attach the full 'new' help.def and not just
the patch - missing a patch would be disasterous ;)
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 20:31:19 +0200
Alexey Veretennikov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is the patch for extended documentation for arithmetical functions
> +,-,×,÷,*
>
> Ple
Hi,
Sure here it is. Don't expect anything big in it - it is just a couple
of lines of text.
Help.def
Description: Binary data
enz...@gmx.com writes:
> Just a suggestion - why not also attach the full 'new' help.def and not just
> the
> patch - missing a patch would be disasterous ;)
>
> On
Wanting to understand my ./configure options, for SVN 927,
I did ./configure --help, ./configure --help=short, and ./configure
--help=recursive.
Captured the output from all 3 and then did a diff on the logs of the short vs
the recursive.
There is no difference other than the values of --help.
Thanks you guys doing this )help is really appreciated- maybe I can make a
contribution too
line 13but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
; -> , for oxford comma?
references :
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/what-is-the-oxford-comma-and-why-do
