From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: Suggested change to Manual 3.5.9 example table Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:46:11 -0400 Message-ID: <8313.1342046771@alphaville> References: <4FFD89AD.1030707@verizon.net> <4FFDFCD6.8040305@verizon.net> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:41178) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sp5fi-0005G8-0a for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:46:14 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sp5fg-0007C0-TO for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:46:13 -0400 Received: from g6t0187.atlanta.hp.com ([15.193.32.64]:30872) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sp5fg-0007Bs-O2 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:46:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: Message from suvayu ali of "Thu, 12 Jul 2012 00:38:58 +0200." List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: suvayu ali Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Charles suvayu ali wrote: > Hello Charles, > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Charles 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 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