On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 12:45 AM, John Scipione <jscipione@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > As the author of the original Deskcalc patch I'd like to make a few > comments. First of all, I like your approach because you don't have to > recalculate the result to convert to scientific notation. I hope that my > patch was at least helpful in giving you guidance in creating your patch. > Congratulations on getting your patch accepted. However, I still think that > there are some really nice aspects to my patch that got overlooked. For > instance my patch allows you to specify the number of significant digits > that you want calculated instead of just using 32. Also, I made a few fixes > that allow you to get more precise results for tranendental functions (like > pi, sin(rad), etc) and I don't think those changes got put in to your patch. > I'll apply your patch when I get a chance and see what other things got left > behind. However, I would like to say, good job, I think your approach is > overall much cleaner than mine. > > John Scipione > > Thank you for your comments. Yes, I looked at your patch and that gave me a good starting point. I also agree with you that your patch has some good points, but I believe these did not really relate to the problem. It is hard to calculate the number of characters that can fit in a certain width, especially when proportional fonts are used, that is why I decided on my approach. It may be a good idea to create a new patch with the other improvements you propose and submit it. Regards, -- Wim van der Meer \/\///\/\