At 19:27 03/05/2010 +0100, Harold Fuchs wrote:
Kev Noname wrote:
I'm not sure if this is a bug or what, but it's unexpected
behavior. Say you make a uniform table, and one of the columns is a
formula with references to other cells in the row, and those cells
might be blank. If you now sort by the formula column, the cell
references in each formula cell may now refer to the cells in other
rows (where the blanks were) instead of the row where they are now
located. If you simply insert a dummy value into those empty cells,
the formula references will be preserved correctly, but filling in
the blanks can be tedious. Is this a bug or is there a way to work around it?
Please supply a small example - just a few numbers and the formula
you are using in an e-mail.
You are right to identify that the problem is not yet clear, of course.
When I try this I find I cannot sort on the "generated" column ...
Really? I hope you can.
... nothing happens.
If you sort only the column of formulae, this may be what you would
want. If the formulae are parallel - as if they were created by
copying or filling down the column, that is - any sort performed only
on these formulae should indeed reorder them. But when such formulae
are moved to other cells, they will also be adjusted in the way that
spreadsheets do, so the cells they depend on will now be different -
perhaps cells in their new rows. And that means that in many cases
(though not all, of course) what ends up in each cell will just be a
copy of what was there before. Nothing will appear to have
happened. If you sort the data cells in each row along with the
results cells (but use the result cells to determine the sort order),
you should in general see a change.
Brian Barker
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
