Suggested change to Manual 3.5.9 example table

Suggested change to Manual 3.5.9 example table

[Charles]

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?

Charlie Millar

Re: Suggested change to Manual 3.5.9 example table

[suvayu ali]

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 4:11 PM, 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?
>

It's a C-style format specifier. Take a look in the following link for
a more comprehensive description.

<http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/clibrary/cstdio/printf/>


-- 
Suvayu

Open source is the future. It sets us free.

Re: Suggested change to Manual 3.5.9 example table

[Nick Dokos]

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

Re: Suggested change to Manual 3.5.9 example table

[Charles]

On 7/11/2012 10:26 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 4:11 PM, 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?
>>
> It's a C-style format specifier. Take a look in the following link for
> a more comprehensive description.
>
> <http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/clibrary/cstdio/printf/>
>
>
Suvaya and others on the list,

I was not specific, as a matter of fact I may have been deliberately 
abstruse - that was not called for.  All I was trying to say that 
example should be corrected since it is confusing.

   Since it appeared that the mean should be 25 rather than 29.7 I 
changed the decimal places in the format specifier and recomputed the 
entire table. It seemed easier to do that than change any of the fields 
in the table.

Thank you for consideration and for the link.

Charlie Millar

Re: Suggested change to Manual 3.5.9 example table

[suvayu ali]

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. :)

Cheers,

-- 
Suvayu

Open source is the future. It sets us free.

Re: Suggested change to Manual 3.5.9 example table

[Nick Dokos]

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

Re: Suggested change to Manual 3.5.9 example table

[Charles]

On 7/11/2012 6:46 PM, Nick Dokos wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2195 / Virus Database: 2437/5126 - Release Date: 07/11/12
>
>

Nick,

I did read your reply.  I thought you were suggesting the reason why the 
error occurred (which makes a lot of sense) and you were inviting 
further explanation from whoever drafted that section of the manual.

As to submitting a patch - Thank you but I have to pass, even for such a 
tinychange. Downloading, installing and learning git is a project slated 
for later this year.

Charlie

Re: Suggested change to Manual 3.5.9 example table

[Bastien]

Hi Charles,

Charles <millarc@verizon.net> writes:

> As to submitting a patch - Thank you but I have to pass, even for such a
> tinychange. Downloading, installing and learning git is a project slated
> for later this year.

You don't have to learn git.

C-x C-f [/...]org.texi

C-x v v

RCS

[Make the change]

C-x v =

[Save the diff and send it to the list.]

If you don't plan to do it, please let us know, so that someone else 
can send a patch.

Thanks,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Suggested change to Manual 3.5.9 example table

[Charles]

On 8/2/2012 11:41 AM, Bastien wrote:
> Hi Charles,
>
> Charles <millarc@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> As to submitting a patch - Thank you but I have to pass, even for such a
>> tinychange. Downloading, installing and learning git is a project slated
>> for later this year.
> You don't have to learn git.
>
> C-x C-f [/...]org.texi
>
> C-x v v
>
> RCS
>
> [Make the change]
>
> C-x v =
>
> [Save the diff and send it to the list.]
>
> If you don't plan to do it, please let us know, so that someone else
> can send a patch.
>
> Thanks,
>
Bastien,

Thanks for the lesson. I'll give it a try.

Charlie