- RTF-Document of 3 pages - In print dialogue: -- pages to print: "1 3" -- no. of prints per page: "2" Result: - Page 1 was printed 4 times - Page 3 was printed 2 times
Confirmed. The same error occurs also in .ODT documents 1-3: OK (1 2 3) 1 3: result (1 1 3) - error 1,3: OK (1 3) Probably an edge case: 1 3 should be interpreted as 1,3 or rejected
setting status to NEW
for me not reproducible with LO 4.0.2.2 (Win7 Home, 64bit) Steps Done: 1. Open WRITER 2. Create a new ODT and RTF-Document with three pages each 3. Select FILE -> PRINT 4. Go to the tab GENERAL 5. Insert in the field PAGES "1 3" and select OK Result: Page 1 to 3 are printed, no page is printed twice (Note: also tested with NUMBER OF COPIES = "2") But in addition, I am not sure, whether we should determine this as a bug. If you want to print all three pages, then you would have to type "1 - 3" and if you want to print only page 1 and 3, then you would have to type "1, 3". I never heard about a syntax "1 3"? But nevertheless, this is for me not reproducible as described in the bug report. Therefore, I would propose to close it. Can anybody confirm this?
(In reply to comment #3) s-joyemusequna said, 1 3 should be interpreted as 1,3 or rejected. Now you experience in 4.0.2.2, it is interpreted as 1-3. IMO there should be a consensus about which is correct. Personally, I would vote for 1,3 Before closing this bug, I would suggest, one would look into the code to see, if there is an explanation for this "random" behaviour, and additionally check, how other applications do with "1 3", to stay "compatible". Maybe the code was changed by other reason since 3.4.4. Maybe it depends on the OS, e.g. Win XP may behave different than Win 7.
And additionally, what is the result for "1 3 8" ?
If I write "1 3 8", then the pages 1 to 8 are printed without printing any page twice (LO 4.0.2.2 [Win7 Home, 64bit], tested with a file with 9 pages). I personally would expect that if you write "1 3", this would be rejected. The correct syntax for me would be "1 - 3" for printing page 1 to 3 and "1, 3" for printing page 1 and 3. @Michael/Jan: What would be your opinion?
(In reply to comment #0) > - RTF-Document of 3 pages > - In print dialogue: > -- pages to print: "1 3" > -- no. of prints per page: "2" > Result: > - Page 1 was printed 4 times > - Page 3 was printed 2 times not reproducible under Win7 64bit using LibO 4.1.4.2 "1 3" print and no. of prints per page "2" --> each page (1, 2 and 3) is printed in 2 copies I mark this as RESOLVED WORKSFORME (In reply to comment #6) > I personally would expect that if you write "1 3", this would be rejected. > The correct syntax for me would be "1 - 3" for printing page 1 to 3 and "1, > 3" for printing page 1 and 3. I agree. I don't like at all the "1 3" syntax too.... one should use "1 - 3" or "1,3" as pointed out by A. Does anybody know how MS Word deals with such a scenario? is the "1 3" syntax accepted or not? maybe we should open a separate report for this.
(In reply to comment #7) > I agree. I don't like at all the "1 3" syntax too.... > one should use "1 - 3" or "1,3" as pointed out by A. > > Does anybody know how MS Word deals with such a scenario? is the "1 3" > syntax accepted or not? IIRC MS Word results in "expected" behaviour: It deals as "1,3" Some applications also deal with "item1 item2" as list of distinct multiple items, e.g. multiple email addresses in To field of email clients. So this is common expected behaviour. If LibO doesn't want to accept the "1 3" syntax, it should throw an error message instead doing nonsense. > maybe we should open a separate report for this. I think, we better would modify the summary to e.g.: "Wrong syntax in print pages field causes unexpected multiple print copies"
(In reply to comment #7) > not reproducible under Win7 64bit using LibO 4.1.4.2 > > "1 3" print and no. of prints per page "2" > --> each page (1, 2 and 3) is printed in 2 copies > > I mark this as RESOLVED WORKSFORME IMHO it does not work, it actually produces an unexpected and therefore erroneous behaviour, even as not such bad, as reported in comment 0 !!
the bug you reported was the double print behaviour of comment 0 which is not reproducible anymore. I suggest to compile a new clean report about the residual inconsistencies you still see.
BTW: From LibO's extended tips, "1,3" is invalid syntax, it should be "1;3" ;-)