- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 01:53:24 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10073 --- Comment #15 from dnovatchev@gmail.com 2010-07-15 01:53:24 --- (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #6) > 1. It is well established to denote log`e x as ln x. Please consider using the > well-established name. In addition to this, I see that among the proposed functions there is no log`x y It would be best to have this function and also ln x. log2 and log10 are then redundant with log and it would be good to consider whether to have them in the document. > As I understand, most of these will make it into the next version of the > document. > I have three comments: > 1. It is well established to denote log`e x as ln x. Please consider using the > well-established name. > 2. exp2 and exp10 are quite redundant with pow and powr. I think that it would > be better if instead of these two functions we have pown m n, where both m and > n are positive integers. > 3. Why we still don't have or() and and() ? Aren't these much more important > than the various trigonometric and exponential functions? Why is this hole in > the document? -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 15 July 2010 01:53:26 UTC