Re: [Libreoffice] Change in addition for date handling (intentional change??)

I created a bug for this.....

https://www.libreoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44385

I will poke around and see if I am able to build the source and test a 
solution... Running git now.

On 01/01/2012 11:01 AM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote:
> Thanks for checking.... Will wait and see what Noel has to say...
>
> The change broke more in that it also ignores EXP, MUL, DIV, MINUS, 
> and NEG. I expect, however, that PLUS and MINUS are the most common 
> operations (to add and subtract days and similar). I cannot think of a 
> highly plausible reason for EXP, MUL, or NEG. Hmmm, or perhaps I can, 
> but it is a stretch.
>
> Certainly the change will increase performance for the cases when a 
> date is not used / expected.
>
> Off hand, I am of the opinion that a fix should at least be added for 
> PLUS and MINUS.
>
> On 01/01/2012 09:52 AM, Regina Henschel wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > I don't know any about the content, but I have searched, when the 
> > changes where made:
> >
> > The part
> >     // #45465 Date needs with "+" a special handling: forces date type
> >               if( GetType() == SbxDATE || rOp.GetType() == SbxDATE )
> >                  aL.eType = SbxDATE;
> > moved from after the switch inside the switch with commit
> > 1421b098ae19a10acb4836fa3752188cf7c52eb2
> > by Noel Power 06-Dec-2010
> >
> > and the "#if 0" is a WaE fix by Tor Lillqvist 06-Oct-2011
> > 8529da08517b41bd9317714e3216bb6d487b24ee
> >
> > So I think, Noel should know.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Regina
> >
> > Andrew Douglas Pitonyak schrieb:
> > > I thought I found a bug, I decided to take a crack at fixing the bug,
> > > and then I became confused because the bug appears to be intentional.
> > > Let me explain:
> > >
> > > Consider some comments related to Basic.
> > >
> > > In the last release of OOo, the statement "Now + 2" returns a date /
> > > time that is two days later than now. In LibreOffice, the same 
> > > statement
> > > appears to return the double representation of the same. Now, off hand,
> > > this appears fine, until one tries to do something like this (which
> > > works in OOo, but fails in LO)
> > >
> > > DateValue(Now + 2)
> > >
> > > This is no big deal if I am writing new code, because I can compensate:
> > > DateValue(CDate(Now + 2)), but t kills legacy code.
> > >
> > > I started poking through the code and I found
> > > core/basic/source/sbx/sbxvalue.cxx
> > >
> > > In the version of the LO code that I have, around line 1312, I see the
> > > following:
> > >
> > > case SbxPLUS:
> > > aL.nDouble += aR.nDouble; break;
> > > #if 0
> > > // See 'break' on preceding line... this
> > > // is unreachable code. Do not delete this
> > > // #if 0 block unless you know for sure
> > > // the 'break' above is intentional.
> > >
> > > // #45465 Date needs with "+" a special handling: forces date type
> > > if( GetType() == SbxDATE || rOp.GetType() == SbxDATE )
> > > aL.eType = SbxDATE;
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > In OOo, the code ends at the break, but following the switch statement,
> > > there is the following check:
> > >
> > > // #45465 Date braucht bei + eine Spezial-Behandlung
> > > if( eOp == SbxPLUS && (GetType() == SbxDATE || rOp.GetType() == 
> > > SbxDATE ) )
> > > aL.eType = SbxDATE;
> > >
> > > So, it looks like someone did a code clean-up and the special handling
> > > code was moved into the switch statement and then it was commented out.
> > >
> > > I was so proud that I figured out where this occurred, but, I am a bit
> > > stymied as to what happened here. It seems that I have almost 
> > > nothing to
> > > fix because someone did this intentionally, or was this left as is
> > > because whomever made the change did not understand why the code was
> > > there....
> > >
> > > Sorry, just a bit confused as to what should be done. My opinion is 
> > > that
> > > a bug was introduced and that the fix is clear, move the break and let
> > > the code run...
> > >
> > > case SbxPLUS:
> > > aL.nDouble += aR.nDouble;
> > > // #45465 Date needs with "+" a special handling: forces date type
> > > if( GetType() == SbxDATE || rOp.GetType() == SbxDATE )
> > > aL.eType = SbxDATE;
> > > break;
> > >
> > > So, what am I missing?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LibreOffice mailing list
> > LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info:  http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php