Re: Suggested change to Manual 3.5.9 example table

[Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com>]

suvayu ali <fatkasuvayu+linux@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Charles,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Charles <millarc@verizon.net> wrote:
> > All I was trying to say that example should be corrected since it is
> > confusing.
> 
> And here I was thinking you are asking about the format specifier! :-p
> 
> Since you have already put in the effort to correct the table, how about
> submitting it as a patch to doc/org.texi? You could also take this
> opportunity to improve the text somewhat. :)
> 

I replied to Charlie's original message but from the tenor of the replies here
I gather nobody saw my message? But I just checked gmane and it's there, so
I'm not sure any more: did anybody see it? Here's the message body again just
in case:

Charles <millarc@verizon.net> wrote:

> I have searched the news groups concerning this and found nothing.
> 
> I am attempting to learn the advance features for tables and could not
> understand 29.7 as the result for $at=vmean(@-II..@-I);%.1f.
> 
> I copied the table and formulas into a scratch org file, changed the
> floating point to .2f and the result was 25.00, which I believe is
> correct. I changed it back to .1f and 25.0 was the result.
> 
> Is the result as given in the manual supposed to demonstrate some
> concept that is not evident to me?
> 

Good one.

It *may* have been intended to illustrate the difference between rows
marked with # and unmarked rows; e.g. if you go back and change a grade
in Sam's row and press TAB, then the # rows are recalculated but the
unmarked one is not.  So the 29.7 might have been a (now incorrect)
remnant of a previous calculation that would have been corrected in the
next global recalculation.

However, if that's the case, a more extensive explanation would
certainly be welcome.

Nick