On 7 Jun 2008 at 11:25, Jerry Feldman wrote: > On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:57:03 +0100 > "mike scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Not so, in fact following that discussion all my columns are now 300 > > entries long, which should see me through. But one day, someone > > /will/ accidentally go over such a preset length, not notice, and pay > > the price with erroneous results. > > > > (And the help file does need clarifying IMO) > > I personally prefer something relatively clean. While it is good to > know that empty cells are not included, considering that someone else > may have to use the worksheet is a very good consideration. In my case, ....
And it's not so obvious that the simple exclusion of empty cells is a good thing. Missing cells in a large table (eg entry typo) may not be spotted for example: maybe there should be a flag to say embedded (or any?) empty cells are an error, as indeed might be cells containing unexpected characters. And I've just spotted that a space character (which of course /looks/ like an empty cell) seems to behave like a numeric zero. Ouch!!! -- Permission for this mail to be processed by any third party in connection with marketing or advertising purposes is hereby explicitly denied. http://www.scottsonline.org.uk lists incoming sites blocked because of spam [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike Scott, Harlow, Essex, England --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
