From ooo-dev-return-28739-apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Sat Nov 3 21:23:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 114B5D8CE for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2012 21:23:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 53835 invoked by uid 500); 3 Nov 2012 21:23:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 53762 invoked by uid 500); 3 Nov 2012 21:23:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 53752 invoked by uid 99); 3 Nov 2012 21:23:52 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 21:23:52 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of juancsanzc@hotmail.com designates 65.55.111.142 as permitted sender) Received: from [65.55.111.142] (HELO blu0-omc4-s3.blu0.hotmail.com) (65.55.111.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 21:23:45 +0000 Received: from BLU0-SMTP33 ([65.55.111.136]) by blu0-omc4-s3.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 3 Nov 2012 14:23:24 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [83.173.170.55] X-EIP: [jc518Q36TmVo4TYpBO4C5EsxS0X3xjJO] X-Originating-Email: [juancsanzc@hotmail.com] Message-ID: Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([83.173.170.55]) by BLU0-SMTP33.blu0.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 3 Nov 2012 14:23:23 -0700 Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 22:23:01 +0100 From: "Juan C. Sanz" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation References: <50954AB7.1070502@apache.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030801070105060905030506" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Nov 2012 21:23:23.0579 (UTC) FILETIME=[748270B0:01CDBA09] X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --------------030801070105060905030506 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El 03/11/2012 19:25=2C jan iversen escribi=F3: > When it is in the part that is being translated localizers will take care > of "=2C" versus ".". > > I know the "x10" is a scientific notation and I use it and like it=2C but > since our calc does not accept it=2C I would prefer the E notation=2C so = people > does not get confused. But it is not to use it in calc but an explanation in the help so=2C i=20 think=2C 1.79769313486232 x 10^308 is more readable for the normal people. > > Jan. > > On 3 November 2012 19:14=2C RGB ES wrote: > >> 2012/11/3 jan iversen >> >>> May I politely as a mathematician point out that there is a major >>> difference in the 2 proposals. >>> >>> Number 1 is a mathematical expression whereas number 2 is a number. >>> >> I'm physicist :) >> >> The first number is the traditional scientific notation (specially if >> proper super indexes are used) while the second one is the "E notation" >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation#E_notation >> >> >> >>> Now I do not know where it is used=2C >> >> One example >> >> https://translate.apache.org/es/OOo_34_help/translate.html?unit=3D609762= 9 >> >> Regards >> Ricardo >> >> >> >>> but if I copy both suggestions into >>> Calc=2C it believes it is text. >>> >>> Should we not have a format that our own calc accept as a number ?? >>> >>> I agree with andrea that number 2 is more readable (and then forget it = is >>> not a number). >>> >>> rgds >>> Jan I. >>> >>> >>> On 3 November 2012 17:47=2C Andrea Pescetti wrote= : >>> >>>> RGB ES wrote: >>>> >>>>> On the help files=2C you find numbers written like >>>>> 1.79769313486232 x 10E308 >>>>> >>>>> This is wrong: it should be either >>>>> 1.79769313486232 x 10^308 >>>>> or >>>>> 1.79769313486232E308 >>>>> what do you think? >>>>> >>>> Yes=2C it's wrong and your first proposal is correct and more readable >> than >>>> the second one. Then I wonder how many times we have these kind of >>> numbers >>>> in our documentation... and probably when they do appear we are more >>>> interested in their order of magnitude than in their actual value. >>>> >>>> Regards=2C >>>> Andrea. >>>> --------------030801070105060905030506--