<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/">
</head>
<body><span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:mikekaganski@hotmail.com" title="Mike Kaganski <mikekaganski@hotmail.com>"> <span class="fn">Mike Kaganski</span></a>
</span> changed
<a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed"
title="RESOLVED NOTABUG - FORMATTING - Wrong date substraction in cell's operation"
href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=132083">bug 132083</a>
<br>
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8">
<tr>
<th>What</th>
<th>Removed</th>
<th>Added</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:right;">Status</td>
<td>REOPENED
</td>
<td>RESOLVED
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:right;">Resolution</td>
<td>---
</td>
<td>NOTABUG
</td>
</tr></table>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed"
title="RESOLVED NOTABUG - FORMATTING - Wrong date substraction in cell's operation"
href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=132083#c7">Comment # 7</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed"
title="RESOLVED NOTABUG - FORMATTING - Wrong date substraction in cell's operation"
href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=132083">bug 132083</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:mikekaganski@hotmail.com" title="Mike Kaganski <mikekaganski@hotmail.com>"> <span class="fn">Mike Kaganski</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to jarko from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=132083#c6">comment #6</a>)
<span class="quote">> In my opinion the problem has been arisen due to conception to prefer fast
> operations over precise results, in any case. Thus, the user is finally
> responsible for correct calculation. Even for simple addition 2+2...</span >
It is wrong. I already tried to explain the reason for the change. And it has
nothing to do with "fast over precise". The older variant was *less* precise.
But you seem to not realize that the problem here is *wrong format* used.
"Time" is a complex concept. And there are at least two distinct and very
different things. One is *wall clock time*: it is the point in time. Another is
*time span* - that is some length of time, that you get by subtracting two wall
clock times - it is time difference. When you use the latter, you may want to
see something like "128 h 32 m". Working with that, you likely want to round
towards the nearest: if you have 128 h 32 m 42 s, and show up to minutes, you
likely want to see 128 h 33 m. But when you are working with clock wall time,
you see something like "2019-12-31 23:59:59". And you don't want your events
that happened at that moment to be registered in 2020. So *correct* and
*precise* result there is *never* round up, but truncate the display down.
In LibreOffice, you use "HH:MM" for wall clock times, and "[HH]:MM" for time
spans. And the change made them behave according to this model: when you use
wall clock time format, you get truncation (so 2019-12-31 23:59:59.9999999999
that is shown up to minute will be still 2019-12-31 23:59); when you use time
span formats, you get rounding to nearest.
What was proposed in the comment that I mentioned above was that even in wall
clock format we still need to limit the precision, and round to nearest
millisecond. That is just my proposal, and I don't know what problems that
might have, but the idea is to limit this specific kind of problem.
But using "HH:MM" for a cell with "A1-A2" is *conceptually* wrong, and
"[HH]:MM" should be used in this case.
Please stop reopening this, unless you have a strong reason to believe that
this is different from what I described.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>