When writing mathematics, it is usually needed to "negate" an expression. For example, on Math you can insert "exists" but not "not exists". On mathematics there are almost an equal number of normal and "negated" symbols: adding a "not" operator will simplify using them without the need to define all those symbols again.
[This is an automated message.]
This bug was filed before the changes to Bugzilla on 2011-10-16. Thus it
started right out as NEW without ever being explicitly confirmed. The bug is
changed to state NEEDINFO for this reason. To move this bug from NEEDINFO back
to NEW please check if the bug still persists with the 3.5.0 beta1 or beta2 prereleases.
Details on how to test the 3.5.0 beta1 can be found at:
more detail on this bulk operation: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RFC-Operation-Spamzilla-tp3607474p3607474.html
The feature requested is not implemented on 3.5 beta2 yet.
So, the neg <?> solves your problem?
(In reply to comment #3)
> So, the neg <?> solves your problem?
"neg" is to take the negation of a Boolean expression. In LaTeX "\not" strikes its argument. For example "\not \in" will produce the same as \notin. In Math, you can do "in" and "notin", but you don't have a general way to strike with a slash (you may however use "overstrike" do draw an horizontal strike)
FYI, to implement \not, MathJax tries to get the corresponding negation of a given Unicode character if it exists or uses 'COMBINING LONG SOLIDUS OVERLAY' (U+0338) otherwise. Alternatively, <menclose notation="updiagonalstrike"> could be implemented in Math.
Please read this message in its entirety before responding.
Your bug was confirmed at least 1 year ago and has not had any activity on it for over a year. Your bug is still set to NEW which means that it is open and confirmed. It would be nice to have the bug confirmed on a newer version than the version reported in the original report to know that the bug is still present -- sometimes a bug is inadvertently fixed over time and just never closed.
If you have time please do the following:
1) Test to see if the bug is still present on a currently supported version of LibreOffice (preferably 4.2 or newer).
2) If it is present please leave a comment telling us what version of LibreOffice and your operating system.
3) If it is NOT present please set the bug to RESOLVED-WORKSFORME and leave a short comment telling us your version and Operating System
Please DO NOT
1) Update the version field
2) Reply via email (please reply directly on the bug tracker)
3) Set the bug to RESOLVED - FIXED (this status has a particular meaning that is not appropriate in this case)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
LibreOffice is powered by a team of volunteers, every bug is confirmed (triaged) by human beings who mostly give their time for free. We invite you to join our triaging by checking out this link:
There are also other ways to get involved including with marketing, UX, documentation, and of course developing - http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/.
Lastly, good bug reports help tremendously in making the process go smoother, please always provide reproducible steps (even if it seems easy) and attach any and all relevant material
I understand that is it requested a feature to add easily a strike over a
up diagonal strike still missing in 6.3 master...
May be something we can derivate from overstrike.