Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-openoffice-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-openoffice-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 78902E11A for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 20:43:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 61975 invoked by uid 500); 10 Feb 2013 20:43:36 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-openoffice-dev-archive@openoffice.apache.org Received: (qmail 61890 invoked by uid 500); 10 Feb 2013 20:43:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openoffice.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@openoffice.apache.org Received: (qmail 61882 invoked by uid 99); 10 Feb 2013 20:43:35 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 20:43:35 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: softfail (athena.apache.org: transitioning domain of hagar.delest@laposte.net does not designate 212.27.42.1 as permitted sender) Received: from [212.27.42.1] (HELO smtp1-g21.free.fr) (212.27.42.1) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 20:43:27 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.2] (unknown [83.153.184.98]) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0069401F0 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2013 21:43:00 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <51180653.9020504@laposte.net> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 21:42:59 +0100 From: Hagar Delest User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:19.0) Gecko/20130117 Thunderbird/19.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0 References: <5116D794.1070500@apache.org> <5118025F.6020507@laposte.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Le 10/02/2013 21:34, Rob Weir a �crit : > This is NOT a complex math problem. It is trivial one, with three > perfectly valid answers. Debating among them is merely a time-wasting > form of bikeshedding. Everyone and his little sister has an opinion > on 0^0. Then you should update the wiki page to make clear what should be the correct result (undefined or 1). > The real problem is this: once we have adopted a convention for this > debatable expression, under what conditions do we change the > convention and break comptibility? Any other formulation of the > question is missing the essence of this decision. If this is a simple problem with a simple answer, then there is no need of convention at all. Just put the correct result. Hagar