In (info "(org) References"), there is an example explaining the range references: @-1$-2..@-1 3 numbers from the column to the left, 2 up to current row What does `2 up to current row' mean? I don't understand. IIRC `@' represents row, it should be `1 up to current row'. -- Best regards.

```
Hi Xue,
Xue Fuqiao <xfq.free@gmail.com> writes:
> In (info "(org) References"), there is an example explaining the range
> references:
>
> @-1$-2..@-1 3 numbers from the column to the left, 2 up to
> current row
>
> What does `2 up to current row' mean? I don't understand. IIRC `@'
> represents row, it should be `1 up to current row'.
No. The whole sentence expands to this:
This range takes 3 numbers: the first one from the column to the
left (and the row above), the 2 others up to current row.
I agree this might not be obvious but I don't have a better proposal.
Maybe a native english speaker can help here.
Best,
--
Bastien
```

```
Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:
> Hi Xue,
>
> Xue Fuqiao <xfq.free@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> In (info "(org) References"), there is an example explaining the range
>> references:
>>
>> @-1$-2..@-1 3 numbers from the column to the left, 2 up to
>> current row
>>
>> What does `2 up to current row' mean? I don't understand. IIRC `@'
>> represents row, it should be `1 up to current row'.
>
> No. The whole sentence expands to this:
>
> This range takes 3 numbers: the first one from the column to the
> left (and the row above), the 2 others up to current row.
>
> I agree this might not be obvious but I don't have a better proposal.
> Maybe a native english speaker can help here.
>
> Best,
I think the current description is wrong and that rows and columns have
been interchanged? The entries defined by this range are all in the row
above (@-1) the current row. The columns chosen are two to the left of
the current column up to the current column.
If you wish to re-word, maybe:
This range expands to three elements, all on the row above the current
row, starting with the column two to the left of the current column.
--
: Eric S Fraga, GnuPG: 0xC89193D8FFFCF67D
: in Emacs 24.3.50.1 and Org release_7.9.3d-874-gf11acc
```

Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> writes: > Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes: > >> Hi Xue, >> >> Xue Fuqiao <xfq.free@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> In (info "(org) References"), there is an example explaining the range >>> references: >>> >>> @-1$-2..@-1 3 numbers from the column to the left, 2 up to >>> current row >>> >>> What does `2 up to current row' mean? I don't understand. IIRC `@' >>> represents row, it should be `1 up to current row'. >> >> No. The whole sentence expands to this: >> >> This range takes 3 numbers: the first one from the column to the >> left (and the row above), the 2 others up to current row. >> >> I agree this might not be obvious but I don't have a better proposal. >> Maybe a native english speaker can help here. >> >> Best, > > > I think the current description is wrong and that rows and columns have > been interchanged? The entries defined by this range are all in the row > above (@-1) the current row. The columns chosen are two to the left of > the current column up to the current column. Right. The formulation above would only be logical with: This range takes 3 numbers: the first one from TWO columns to the left (and the row above), the 2 others up to current row. But still not easy to understand. > If you wish to re-word, maybe: > > This range expands to three elements, all on the row above the current > row, starting with the column two to the left of the current column. Would be much better, I think. More precisely: The manual speaks about `field references' and `column'- and `row' specifications. So I would write: The three SPECIFICATIONS expand to a field range from the row above the current row, starting with two columns to the left up to the current column. (I would avoid the ambiguous expression "column two" since it is a relative specification) alternatively The TWO REFERENCES expand to a field range from the row above the current row, starting with two columns to the left up to the current column. Dieter -- Best wishes H. Dieter Wilhelm Darmstadt Germany

```
Hi Xue, Eric and Dieter,
dieter@duenenhof-wilhelm.de (H. Dieter Wilhelm) writes:
> (I would avoid the ambiguous expression "column two" since it is a
> relative specification) alternatively
>
> The TWO REFERENCES expand to a field range from the row above the
> current row, starting with two columns to the left up to the current
> column.
Yes... but this is a bit long.
I finally used this:
@@-1$-2..@@-1 @r{in the first row up, 3 fields from 2 columns on the left}
Implicitely, the sentence ends with "up to the current one", which I
think can be assumed to be obvious here.
Let me know if you think this is still confusing.
Best,
--
Bastien
```

```
Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:
> Hi Xue, Eric and Dieter,
>
> dieter@duenenhof-wilhelm.de (H. Dieter Wilhelm) writes:
>
>> (I would avoid the ambiguous expression "column two" since it is a
>> relative specification) alternatively
>>
>> The TWO REFERENCES expand to a field range from the row above the
>> current row, starting with two columns to the left up to the current
>> column.
>
> Yes... but this is a bit long.
>
> I finally used this:
>
> @@-1$-2..@@-1 @r{in the first row up, 3 fields from 2 columns on the left}
Concise and correct! I'm happy with this.
--
: Eric S Fraga, GnuPG: 0xC89193D8FFFCF67D
: in Emacs 24.3.50.1 and Org release_7.9.3d-898-g005917
```

```
Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> writes:
> Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:
>
>> Hi Xue, Eric and Dieter,
>>
>> dieter@duenenhof-wilhelm.de (H. Dieter Wilhelm) writes:
>>
>>> (I would avoid the ambiguous expression "column two" since it is a
>>> relative specification) alternatively
>>>
>>> The TWO REFERENCES expand to a field range from the row above the
>>> current row, starting with two columns to the left up to the current
>>> column.
>>
>> Yes... but this is a bit long.
>>
>> I finally used this:
>>
>> @@-1$-2..@@-1 @r{in the first row up, 3 fields from 2 columns on the left}
>
> Concise and correct! I'm happy with this.
Sorry but I don't understand "in the first row up". Maybe better: The
(or a) row up, 3...
Another grievance with such a terse description for me is although it
may describe the end result - the range - correctly but does not take
into account how the references at hand are working.
But maybe I'm just picking nits here :-)
What about such an approach:
@@-1$-2..@@-1 @r{a range of 3 fields: a row up, from 2 fields on the left .. a row up}
Dieter
--
Best wishes
H. Dieter Wilhelm
Darmstadt
Germany
```

Dieter Wilhelm <dieter@duenenhof-wilhelm.de> wrote: > Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> writes: > > > Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes: > > > >> Hi Xue, Eric and Dieter, > >> > >> dieter@duenenhof-wilhelm.de (H. Dieter Wilhelm) writes: > >> > >>> (I would avoid the ambiguous expression "column two" since it is a > >>> relative specification) alternatively > >>> > >>> The TWO REFERENCES expand to a field range from the row above the > >>> current row, starting with two columns to the left up to the current > >>> column. > >> > >> Yes... but this is a bit long. > >> > >> I finally used this: > >> > >> @@-1$-2..@@-1 @r{in the first row up, 3 fields from 2 columns on the left} > > > > Concise and correct! I'm happy with this. > > Sorry but I don't understand "in the first row up". Maybe better: The > (or a) row up, 3... > > Another grievance with such a terse description for me is although it > may describe the end result - the range - correctly but does not take > into account how the references at hand are working. > > But maybe I'm just picking nits here :-) > No, I think it's unclear as well (I hadn't paid attention to the thread previously. Sorry for joining the party late). > What about such an approach: > > @@-1$-2..@@-1 @r{a range of 3 fields: a row up, from 2 fields on the left .. a row up} > Perhaps factoring out the row part makes it clearer? Also, presenting it as a movement from the current cell might help - at least that's how I tend to read these specs: "a range of 3 fields: up one row, two columns over to the left .. the current column (implicitly specified)" Nick

Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> writes: > Dieter Wilhelm <dieter@duenenhof-wilhelm.de> wrote: > >> Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> writes: >> >> > Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes: >> > >> >> Hi Xue, Eric and Dieter, >> >> >> >> dieter@duenenhof-wilhelm.de (H. Dieter Wilhelm) writes: >> >> >> >>> (I would avoid the ambiguous expression "column two" since it is a >> >>> relative specification) alternatively >> >>> >> >>> The TWO REFERENCES expand to a field range from the row above the >> >>> current row, starting with two columns to the left up to the current >> >>> column. >> >> >> >> Yes... but this is a bit long. >> >> >> >> I finally used this: >> >> >> >> @@-1$-2..@@-1 @r{in the first row up, 3 fields from 2 columns on >> >> the left} >> > >> > Concise and correct! I'm happy with this. >> >> Sorry but I don't understand "in the first row up". Maybe better: The >> (or a) row up, 3... >> >> Another grievance with such a terse description for me is although it >> may describe the end result - the range - correctly but does not take >> into account how the references at hand are working. >> >> But maybe I'm just picking nits here :-) >> > > No, I think it's unclear as well (I hadn't paid attention to the > thread previously. > Sorry for joining the party late). > >> What about such an approach: >> >> @@-1$-2..@@-1 @r{a range of 3 fields: a row up, from 2 fields on the >> left .. a row up} >> > > Perhaps factoring out the row part makes it clearer? Also, presenting > it as a movement from > the current cell might help - at least that's how I tend to read these specs: > > "a range of 3 fields: up one row, two columns over to the left .. the > current column (implicitly specified)" "a range of three fields in the row before the current row, starting two columns before the current column and ending in the current column." -- Thomas S. Dye http://www.tsdye.com

```
Thomas S. Dye <tsd@tsdye.com> wrote:
> >> >> @@-1$-2..@@-1 @r{in the first row up, 3 fields from 2 columns on
> >> >> the left}
> >> >
>
> "a range of three fields in the row before the current row, starting two
> columns before the current column and ending in the current
> column."
>
That's the best one so far imo, and I doubt it can get any better.
Nick
```

```
tsd@tsdye.com (Thomas S. Dye) writes:
> "a range of three fields in the row before the current row, starting two
> columns before the current column and ending in the current
> column."
Yes, it's very explicit, but a bit long -- I try to have the
explanation fit in one line. I updated again to this:
3 fields in the row above, starting from 2 columns on the left
--
Bastien
```