Hi all,
there is one thing I definitely want to avoid - at all cost: namely
converting non-formula input into a formula.
Lets say the user enters: +some_string
IF 'some_string' is NOT a valid formula, then:
A.) IF this would be converted to a formula, Calc would evaluate it
and display
#NAME?, #VALUE? or the like
So, the user has to *come back ANYWAY* and correct it, IF he
indeed wanted a formula.
B.) However, IF he did NOT want a formula, then he is forced to come back
and undo the formula changes back to non-formula
=> these are 2 additional steps!!!
=> AND actually the formula code would convert it back to formula
So, the user who wishes a formula does NOT pay any penalty IF the
ERROR-formula is NOT automatically converted to a formula (as he has to
correct it anyway, and after that it would be converted automatically),
BUT the user who does need the actual string pays a very high price (up
to the point that he cannot enter strings starting with + or -).
I do use extensively strings in my work, so I hope this gets fixed.
(including strings starting with mathematical signs: +, -, *). (') is
not an option because on various keyboards it is not easily accessible.
Sincerely,
Leonard
Eike Rathke wrote:
Hi Muthu,
btw, this would be sorted into the corresponding thread if you replied
on the original mail instead of some digest.. anyway.
On Thursday, 2007-08-09 13:55:13 +0530, Muthu Subramanian wrote:
Have you tried the patch that I have attached (in issue 20496)?
No, that issue went out of my sight until recently when it came to life
again.
It would (really) be easier if we can comment on the changes required on
the patch (I think).
I think we should first clarify the behavior we really want. Otherwise
talking about necessary changes to the patch is moot.
1. "+func(" should also cause a formula input (exception for +<number>).
If so, then any formula should be evaluated, not just +<number> or
+func( Doing so would evaluate +<string> input as a formula and lookup
whether <string> happens to match a defined name, and result in #NAME?
if it doesn't. Which is what Excel does.
2. And w.r.t to the ++ -> =++ its for the similarity with excel (and also +
-> =+).
Excel converts +<number>+<number> to =<number>+<number> and ++<number>
to =+<number>, but converts +<name> to =+<name>
Note that Excel does not convert single numbers like +1 or -1 but does
convert ++1 to =+1, --1 to =--1, +-1 to =+-1 and -+1 to =-1 (all without
any other trailing operators) which I find pretty disturbing.
Eike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
