About range references in the spreadsheet

About range references in the spreadsheet

[Xue Fuqiao]

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.

Re: About range references in the spreadsheet

[Bastien]

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

Re: About range references in the spreadsheet

[Eric S Fraga]

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

Re: About range references in the spreadsheet

[H. Dieter Wilhelm]

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

Re: About range references in the spreadsheet

[Bastien]

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

Re: About range references in the spreadsheet

[Eric S Fraga]

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

Re: About range references in the spreadsheet

[Dieter Wilhelm]

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

Re: About range references in the spreadsheet

[Nick Dokos]

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

Re: About range references in the spreadsheet

[Thomas S. Dye]

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

Re: About range references in the spreadsheet

[Nick Dokos]

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

Re: About range references in the spreadsheet

[Bastien]

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