suvayu ali <address@hidden> wrote:
Hello Charles,
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Charles <address@hidden> 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 <address@hidden> 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(@address@hidden);%.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