From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tsd@tsdye.com (Thomas S. Dye) Subject: Re: About range references in the spreadsheet Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:11:05 -1000 Message-ID: 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> <6758.1359673452@alphaville> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:33568) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U14E9-0001pP-K1 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:11:34 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U14E8-0002j6-47 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:11:33 -0500 Received: from oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com ([67.222.54.6]:49754) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U14E7-0002ht-Rt for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:11:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: <6758.1359673452@alphaville> (Nick Dokos's message of "Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:04:12 -0500") 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: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Cc: Dieter Wilhelm , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Nick Dokos writes: > 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)" "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