From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: About range references in the spreadsheet Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:04:12 -0500 Message-ID: <6758.1359673452@alphaville> References: <20130116232437.b04189ed2c42c927f16b8d1c@gmail.com> <878v7g6vhz.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87obgbcxdx.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <87ehh6iti9.fsf@urmel.duenenhof-wilhelm.de> <87vcae8vmv.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87txpy85ns.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <877gmtrn05.fsf@urmel.duenenhof-wilhelm.de> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:39473) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U13B2-000273-J8 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:04:18 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U13B1-0005xI-DK for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:04:16 -0500 Received: from g5t0008.atlanta.hp.com ([15.192.0.45]:21678) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U13B1-0005x5-56 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:04:15 -0500 In-Reply-To: Message from Dieter Wilhelm of "Thu, 31 Jan 2013 23:44:26 +0100." <877gmtrn05.fsf@urmel.duenenhof-wilhelm.de> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Dieter Wilhelm Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Dieter Wilhelm wrote: > Eric S Fraga writes: > > > Bastien 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