Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jancasacondor@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEtvNKd-Gt0HF8OaXh_-eYo31DSQEZxG5Jspjk=Mmok5J9K_Og@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAEtvNKeMnY2N0qfHwG=DSWP16UqEgGt7z6Yyg6f4q2BDhmduaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<50954AB7.1070502@apache.org>
	<CAK2iWdRJpau1su3bBnn4+erhg4dFGWmAOHt2LJLJSC0B_UG+EQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEtvNKd-Gt0HF8OaXh_-eYo31DSQEZxG5Jspjk=Mmok5J9K_Og@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 19:25:50 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAK2iWdRa9N+sN9STLxcoNDNbdUjPXwLyfe4aT00-RCAGm5bpqg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DOCUMENTATION]Wrong use of scientific notation
From: jan iversen <jancasacondor@gmail.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff1c4e6c8926204cd9b6144

--e89a8ff1c4e6c8926204cd9b6144
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

When it is in the part that is being translated localizers will take care
of "," versus ".".

I know the "x10" is a scientific notation and I use it and like it, but
since our calc does not accept it, I would prefer the E notation, so people
does not get confused.

Jan.

On 3 November 2012 19:14, RGB ES <rgb.mldc@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2012/11/3 jan iversen <jancasacondor@gmail.com>
>
> > 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,
>
>
> One example
>
> https://translate.apache.org/es/OOo_34_help/translate.html?unit=6097629
>
> Regards
> Ricardo
>
>
>
> > but if I copy both suggestions into
> > Calc, 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, Andrea Pescetti <pescetti@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > RGB ES wrote:
> > >
> > >> 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?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yes, 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,
> > >   Andrea.
> > >
> >
>

--e89a8ff1c4e6c8926204cd9b6144--