ups, our calc does not like "." if it is setup for e.g. enGB, so actually
calc accepted the second notation if I changed it to ","
Would it be possible to have a macro or something for "." so it appears in
"," for me "." signals 1000 (1.000)
Jan.
On 3 November 2012 18:29, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>wrote:
> It appears that all three forms are correct as notations for the same
> numerical value where "." is recognized as a decimal point.
>
> I agree that there should be consistency.
>
> I think context of the numeral is important. In particular, which is most
> likely to be easily recognized and understood by the intended reader of the
> particular information? Is there something about the form chosen that is
> relevant to the context in which it occurs.
>
> Off hand, 1.79769313486232E+308 (my preference) is related to the
> expression of numerical constant values in inputoutput of data and in
> programming languages.
>
> The common formula presentation, using mathematical notation, is more like
> 1.79769313486232 x 10^308, namely
>
> 1.79769313486232⨯10⁵⁸
>
> (The above example depends on having a good Unicode font.)
> (I couldn't find a good superscript 3 so I changed the exponent in the
> Unicoded example).
> It should not be difficult to use correct symbols and superscripts in the
> documentation.
>
>  Dennis
>
> Original Message
> From: RGB ES [mailto:rgb.mldc@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 07:21
> To: ooodev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation
>
> On the help files, 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?
>
> Regards
> Ricardo
>
>
