![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
I have it working correct on LO3.4.1.
Started from scratch (new sheet) in A2. 1:00 tab 7:00 tab 12.5 tab =(B2-A2)*24*C2 and it all works ok.
steve
Steve,
It works properly here, too, with the proper cell format. Somehow the two
problem columns became typed as time rather than as number. When I figured
that out and changed the cell formats the display corrected.
The incorrect formatting might have been carried over from an existing
column when I added a couple of interior new columns.
Thanks,
Rich
Hi
I suggest you to use the format cell. How ? Like this:
1) Select the cells where you are going to use for write your hours,
include the cell where you are going to put de difference between hours.
2) Go to Menu-Format-Cell and select Time. There are some formats,
select format like this: "01:37:46 PM"
3) Write yours times in the cells that you had selected.
4) Make the subtraction.
5) Example:
-Select range of cells A1 until C1.
-Format Range: Menu-Format-Time.
-Write or put in cell A1 the first time (The greatest)
Example: 07:45:12 AM
-Write or put in cell B2 the second time
Example: 01:30:12 AM
-Make the subtraction in cell C1: A1 - B1
Result: 06:15:00 AM
I hope this solve your problem,
Regards,
Jorge Rodríguez
You need to create it. LO will pick up a font in ~/.fonts, so it's easy to
use that for testing, or for having a personalized, non-system wide font
if you need it.Do I need a subdirectory of pointers to the font files if the system-wide
directory has what I need? If this is unique to LO, I'll do it.
It's not unique to LO. I don't have slackware (I use Ubuntu), however I
did find this for slackware:
<http://nigglingaspirations.blogspot.com/2009/10/installing-ttf-fonts-in-slackware-122.html>
The question is: what type of fonts are they? My reason for asking is that
LO has some issues with opentype fonts:100dpi/ ISO8859-2/ PEX/ TrueType/ afms/ encodings/ local/
75dpi/ ISO8859-9/ Speedo/ Type1/ atmfonts/ fonts.cache-1 misc/
CID/ OTF/ TTF/ URW/ culmus/ fonts.cache-2 util/The posted URL ran off the right edge of the alpine window so I couldn't
past it in firefox.
No. I am asking for the type of the specific font that you cannot
display in LO but can in other applications. Pick _one_ font for
testing, then tell us the exact filename of that font:
$ ls -al <fontnameof>
That way we can help try to figure out if it's opentype, truetype, or
some other font that LO may (or may not) be having issues with.
Am 19.07.2011 22:45, Rich Shepard wrote:
I have it working correct on LO3.4.1. Started from scratch (new sheet) in
A2. 1:00 tab 7:00 tab 12.5 tab =(B2-A2)*24*C2 and it all works ok.Steve,
It works properly here, too, with the proper cell format. Somehow the two
problem columns became typed as time rather than as number. When I figured
that out and changed the cell formats the display corrected.The incorrect formatting might have been carried over from an existing
column when I added a couple of interior new columns.Thanks,
Rich
Again, the number format has absolutely no influence on the formula result. Never ever. Stop thinking in formatting attributes. They are meaningless. It's all about numeric cell values.
=(A1-B1)*24 is the same as (A1-B1)/TIME(1;0;0). Both convert days to hours. If the results happen to look different because you did not format the cell explicitly, this is a merely cosmetic effect.
=TIME(1;0;0)=1/24 returns TRUE because both expressions are perfectly equivalent.
=TIME(1;2;3) is just another way to calculate =1/24 + 2/1440 + 3/86400 which is 1/24 of a day + 2/1440 of a day + 3/86400 of a day.
In other words: 1 hour + 2 minutes + 3 seconds
You can format the result of =PI() in thousands of different dates, times, currencies, percents with decimal commas and with decimal points without ever changing the value of Pi.
It seems that OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice Calc will infer the type of a cell from the type of the formula result if no other type information is provided. As far as I know, that is how results like 01:15 instead of 01.25 show up when the formula produces a date-time type of value. If you want something different, it is necessary to over-ride the type by specifying the format you want.
- Dennis
Am 20.07.2011 07:16, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
It seems that OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice Calc will infer the type
of a cell from the type of the formula result if no other type information is provided.
As far as I know, that is how results like 01:15 instead of 01.25 show up when the formula produces a date-time type of value. If you want something different, it is necessary to over-ride the type by specifying the format you want.
- Dennis
It is _always_ in days rather than hours. Therefore 01:15 (1h 15m) is _always_ 0.05208 (of a day) rather than 1.25 (of an hour). You multiply days by 24 to get a number in unit hours: =0.05208*24 gives 1.25.
Of course we can also enter the text value 01:15 which is a sequence of 4 digits with a colon and no numeric value at all. In 99% of all cases numeric strings are plain wrong and a pain in the ass.
If your cell is "unformatted" (number format "General"), then the resulting number format is _one_particular_ format for date, time, percent, currency etc. depending on the locale context and how you typed a numeric expression into a cell. When a formula returns a number in an "unformatted" cell, the number format is somewhat uncertain. If it looks strange just apply the number format you expect to see. This never changes the value. It just modifies the appearance of a number.
I use a default template with a set of cell styles for my most wanted number formats and text layouts. Using styles I can format huge and complex spreadsheets within a minute. In formulas you can use =<some_time_calculation>+STYLE("MyTime") which applies a whole set of formatting attributes on the fly.
[Tutorial] Ten concepts that every Calc user should know:
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=39529
It's not unique to LO. I don't have slackware (I use Ubuntu), however I
did find this for slackware:
<http://nigglingaspirations.blogspot.com/2009/10/installing-ttf-fonts-in-slackware-122.html>
NoOp,
I've had no problems with any of my installed fonts with Red Hat or
Slackware ... until now. 
No. I am asking for the type of the specific font that you cannot display
in LO but can in other applications. Pick _one_ font for testing, then
tell us the exact filename of that font:
OK. The Bitstream BakerSignet typeface is ls 1152a___.* The .atm follows:
StartFontMetrics 3.0
Comment Copyright 1987-1992 as an unpublished work by Bitstream Inc.,
Cambridge, MA.
Comment All rights reserved
Comment Confidential and proprietary to Bitstream Inc.
Comment Bitstream is a registered trademark of Bitstream Inc.
Comment Creation Date: Tue Sep 8 17:27:57 1992
Comment UniqueID 15532117
Comment VMusage 31884 34782
Comment Bitstream AFM Data
Comment bitsClassification Calligraphic 715
Comment bitsFontID 1152
Comment bitsManufacturingDate Tue Sep 8 17:27:57 1992
Comment bitsLayoutName StandardEncoding
FontName BakerSignetBT-Roman
FullName Baker Signet
FamilyName Baker Signet
Weight Normal
ItalicAngle 0
IsFixedPitch false
FontBBox -167 -294 1019 916
UnderlinePosition -140
UnderlineThickness 48
Version 003.001
EncodingScheme AdobeStandardEncoding
CapHeight 641
XHeight 512
Ascender 701
Descender -280
StartCharMetrics 228
etc.
Hope this helps identify the problem,
Rich
It's not unique to LO. I don't have slackware (I use Ubuntu), however I
did find this for slackware:
<http://nigglingaspirations.blogspot.com/2009/10/installing-ttf-fonts-in-slackware-122.html>NoOp,
I've had no problems with any of my installed fonts with Red Hat or
Slackware ... until now.
I only referred to that as it shows making a ~/.fonts folder etc. Please
create and put the BakerSignet font in there & see if LO picks it up.
No. I am asking for the type of the specific font that you cannot display
in LO but can in other applications. Pick _one_ font for testing, then
tell us the exact filename of that font:OK. The Bitstream BakerSignet typeface is ls 1152a___.* The .atm follows:
StartFontMetrics 3.0
Comment Copyright 1987-1992 as an unpublished work by Bitstream Inc.,
Cambridge, MA.
Comment All rights reserved
Comment Confidential and proprietary to Bitstream Inc.
Comment Bitstream is a registered trademark of Bitstream Inc.
Comment Creation Date: Tue Sep 8 17:27:57 1992
Comment UniqueID 15532117
Comment VMusage 31884 34782
Comment Bitstream AFM Data
Comment bitsClassification Calligraphic 715
Comment bitsFontID 1152
Comment bitsManufacturingDate Tue Sep 8 17:27:57 1992
Comment bitsLayoutName StandardEncoding
FontName BakerSignetBT-Roman
FullName Baker Signet
FamilyName Baker Signet
Weight Normal
ItalicAngle 0
IsFixedPitch false
FontBBox -167 -294 1019 916
UnderlinePosition -140
UnderlineThickness 48
Version 003.001
EncodingScheme AdobeStandardEncoding
CapHeight 641
XHeight 512
Ascender 701
Descender -280
StartCharMetrics 228etc.
Hope this helps identify the problem,
Rich
Not really, as I don't know what the astrisk is in '1152a___.*' - I know
of no fonts that are listed as .* Nor are there any fonts that use a
.atm extension. .atm is used for the Adobe Type Manager font
catalog/file & ATM fonts are generally Type 1 fonts with an .pfb, .afm
and .pfm (and possibly .pfa) files. So I'm still confused.
See:
http://nwalsh.com/comp.fonts/FAQ/cf_15.htm#SEC47
for added info on font extensions.
The asterisk means multiple suffixes. In this case, 1152a___.afm,
1152a___.inf, 1152a___.pfb, and 1152a___.pfm. I mistyped afm as atm.
Well, I guess LO is different from other apps in that it cannot see fonts
in /usr/share/fonts, but does in ~/.fonts. Very strange. Regardless, I will
make softlinks in ~/.fonts to the directories in /usr/share/fonts.
Thanks,
Rich
Hi 
That is strange and i'm sure "Webmaster at Kracked Press" has probably mentioned
it before but it might be worth posting a bug-report about it. It's a bit weird
to have to keep copies of fonts in several different places.
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport
I have a feeling that short-cuts (="links" in linux and perhaps Mac?) mightwork
well but it's still weird and inconvenient.
Regards from
Tom
Tom,
I've not needed to do this with WordPerfect/linux, Abiword, or
OpenOffice.org. Yes, it is strange.
Links in linux are not equivalent to Microsoft shortcuts. The latter are
icons on the root window, but I have no idea what they do behind the scenes.
The default for link creation is a hard link; that is, an actual copy of the
file at a new location. Most of the time a soft link does the job. Those are
pointers to the actual file so there's only one copy on the system.
I'm not going to dig into the code and try to learn why the application
does not pick up the LHS default location of /usr/share/fonts. Perhaps it's
mimicing a single-user application (which is what I assume Microsoft Office
is) so it wants everything local to the user invoking it. Shrug. A minor
PITA for maintenance, but at least I can now access all the fonts on my
system.
Regards,
Rich
________________________________
From: Rich Shepard <rshepard@appl-ecosys.com>
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Thu, 28 July, 2011 14:15:40
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: New User: Three Questions
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Tom Davies wrote:
It's a bit weird to have to keep copies of fonts in several different
places. I have a feeling that short-cuts (="links" in linux and perhaps
Mac?) mightwork well but it's still weird and inconvenient.
Tom,
I've not needed to do this with WordPerfect/linux, Abiword, or
OpenOffice.org. Yes, it is strange.
Links in linux are not equivalent to Microsoft shortcuts. The latter are
icons on the root window, but I have no idea what they do behind the scenes.
The default for link creation is a hard link; that is, an actual copy of the
file at a new location. Most of the time a soft link does the job. Those are
pointers to the actual file so there's only one copy on the system.
I'm not going to dig into the code and try to learn why the application
does not pick up the LHS default location of /usr/share/fonts. Perhaps it's
mimicing a single-user application (which is what I assume Microsoft Office
is) so it wants everything local to the user invoking it. Shrug. A minor
PITA for maintenance, but at least I can now access all the fonts on my
system.
Regards,
Rich
Hi
If you have fixed the problem then that's great but it would help other people
if you could just post a bug-report to let the devs know that there is something
worth fixing. Posting a bug-report does not mean fixing the problem yourself
and does not mean doing coding work yourself. It's roughly like sending an
email to the devs group and leaving it for them to do the work. By "like" i do
not mean "identical to".
"Equivalents" is also a very ambiguous word. I was referring to soft-links as
created in a DE when you right-click on a file and choose "Make Link" or on a
menu item and choose "Add to desktop" (or panel). My understanding of
hard-links is sketchy but i think they don't create copies of files
http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/understanding-unixlinux-symbolic-soft-and-hard-links.html
Regards from
Tom
Hard links use another node for the same file; that's equivalent to making
copies. Each directory has a limited, but large, number of nodes available.
That's why a partition can be out of space while not completely filled if
there are several thousand tiny files in it.
Rich
I only referred to that as it shows making a ~/.fonts folder etc. Please
create and put the BakerSignet font in there & see if LO picks it up.Not really, as I don't know what the astrisk is in '1152a___.*' - I know
of no fonts that are listed as .* Nor are there any fonts that use a
.atm extension. .atm is used for the Adobe Type Manager font
catalog/file & ATM fonts are generally Type 1 fonts with an .pfb, .afm
and .pfm (and possibly .pfa) files. So I'm still confused.The asterisk means multiple suffixes. In this case, 1152a___.afm,
1152a___.inf, 1152a___.pfb, and 1152a___.pfm. I mistyped afm as atm.
Got it.
Well, I guess LO is different from other apps in that it cannot see fonts
in /usr/share/fonts, but does in ~/.fonts. Very strange. Regardless, I will
make softlinks in ~/.fonts to the directories in /usr/share/fonts.
...
Might be an issue with the slackware build - you might consider filing a
bug report.
It gets even more interesting; I was experimenting with some old Adobe
FrameMaker .pfb files & used FontForge to convert a .pdb to the
respective .pfa & .afm files. Placed those in ~/.fonts and LO 3.3.3 and
OOo 3.2.1 pick up the font just fine. However, LO 3.4.2 rc2
(pre-release) and OOo-Dev 3.4.0 do not. I'll file a bug on those if I
get time in the next few days.
Even stranger... I created .afm files for 400 postscript fonts (licenced
of course) and had those in ~/.fonts (the .pfb and .afm files) and LO
3.3..x picked them up fine, but LO 3.4.x did not. So I moved them to
/usr/share/fonts/PSFONTS, updated the fc-cache, and now LO 3.4 is
picking them up as well. Duplicated on a different machine w/o issue, so
I reckon that I'll pass on filing the bug. Note that my system is Ubuntu
(debian based) and not slackware, so this info may not be of use to Rich
and his system.
Hi
I get the impression that the different distros are not that hugely different
"under the bonnet" even the ones that are in different families (ie Slackware
family vs Debian family). Agreed that it's worth being aware that there might
be differences tho.
Regards from
Tom
I'd be curious to see what the output of xlsfonts and fslsfonts on that
machine looked like...
I only referred to that as it shows making a ~/.fonts folder etc.
[SNIP]
Well, I guess LO is different from other apps in that it
cannot see fonts in /usr/share/fonts, but does in ~/.fonts. Very
strange.
[SNIP]
That may not be correct: On one machine I have a collection of about
5730 fonts (old hobby, long story) and ALL of them are installed using
rpm or yum in /usr/share/fonts (I built the RPM packages for most of
them). I do NOT have a .fonts directory, and LO (just like OOo) sees
all of them just fine. They display properly in (for instance) writer,
and they also print correctly.
I'm on fedora fc15 on that machine, and except for the slightly longer
loading time (probably due to the ridiculous number of fonts), there
are no problems at all.
OK there's one - when I tried to print out a "font catalog" last fall,
I had to break it into multiple chunks. I don't remember whether it
was the extremely long time that was needed or if instead it was a SW
limitation. But IMNSOHAO anybody doing something like should probably
not expect it to be just another 'trivial' task anyway.
- Bill