Unexpected relative reference behaviour

Unexpected relative reference behaviour

[Guido Van Hoecke]

Hi,

Using this table

| Grand total      | 19.55 |    |
|------------------+-------+----|
| <2013-05-09 Thu> |  1.23 | v2 |
| <2013-05-04 Sat> |  5.76 | v1 |
| <2013-05-14 Tue> |  3.78 | v1 |
| <2013-04-24 Wed> |  8.78 | v2 |
#+TBLFM: @1$2=vsum(@I..@>);%.2f

I want the formula to be relative to the first hline so, according to
the manual, it should be possible to change @1$2 into @I-1$2

| Grand total      | 19.55 |    |
|------------------+-------+----|
| <2013-05-09 Thu> |  1.23 | v2 |
| <2013-05-04 Sat> |  5.76 | v1 |
| <2013-05-14 Tue> |  3.78 | v1 |
| <2013-04-24 Wed> |  8.78 | v2 |
#+TBLFM: @I-1$2=vsum(@I..@>);%.2f

But this produces very strange results.
Hitting C-c * with the cursor in @>$2 produces:

| Grand total      | 19.55 |    |
|------------------+-------+----|
| <2013-05-09 Thu> |  1.23 | v2 |
| <2013-05-04 Sat> |  5.76 | v1 |
| <2013-05-14 Tue> |  3.78 | v1 |
| 2939977.00       | 19.55 | v2 |
#+TBLFM: @I-1$2=vsum(@I..@>);%.2f

Why does it change <2013-04-24 Wed> into 2939977.0, and 8.78 into 19.55?

Hitting C-u C-c * with the cursor in @>$2 messes up the complete table
and results in:
|       0.00 |  30.32 |    |
|------------+--------+----|
|       0.00 |  30.32 | v2 |
| 4409973.00 |  59.41 | v1 |
|       0.00 | 113.06 | v1 |
| 7349950.00 | 222.34 | v2 |
#+TBLFM: @I-1$2=vsum(@I..@>);%.2f

Am I correct to assume that this is at least unexpected, and probably
erroneous behaviour?


Guido

--
"Consider a spherical bear, in simple harmonic motion..."
		-- Professor in the UCB physics department

Re: Unexpected relative reference behaviour

[Carsten Dominik]

Hi Guido,

@I references are unfortunately not yet supported on the left hand side of a formula.
I hope that some day they will, but currently this is not the case.

- Carsten

On 9.5.2013, at 11:04, Guido Van Hoecke <guivho@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Using this table
> 
> | Grand total      | 19.55 |    |
> |------------------+-------+----|
> | <2013-05-09 Thu> |  1.23 | v2 |
> | <2013-05-04 Sat> |  5.76 | v1 |
> | <2013-05-14 Tue> |  3.78 | v1 |
> | <2013-04-24 Wed> |  8.78 | v2 |
> #+TBLFM: @1$2=vsum(@I..@>);%.2f
> 
> I want the formula to be relative to the first hline so, according to
> the manual, it should be possible to change @1$2 into @I-1$2
> 
> | Grand total      | 19.55 |    |
> |------------------+-------+----|
> | <2013-05-09 Thu> |  1.23 | v2 |
> | <2013-05-04 Sat> |  5.76 | v1 |
> | <2013-05-14 Tue> |  3.78 | v1 |
> | <2013-04-24 Wed> |  8.78 | v2 |
> #+TBLFM: @I-1$2=vsum(@I..@>);%.2f
> 
> But this produces very strange results.
> Hitting C-c * with the cursor in @>$2 produces:
> 
> | Grand total      | 19.55 |    |
> |------------------+-------+----|
> | <2013-05-09 Thu> |  1.23 | v2 |
> | <2013-05-04 Sat> |  5.76 | v1 |
> | <2013-05-14 Tue> |  3.78 | v1 |
> | 2939977.00       | 19.55 | v2 |
> #+TBLFM: @I-1$2=vsum(@I..@>);%.2f
> 
> Why does it change <2013-04-24 Wed> into 2939977.0, and 8.78 into 19.55?
> 
> Hitting C-u C-c * with the cursor in @>$2 messes up the complete table
> and results in:
> |       0.00 |  30.32 |    |
> |------------+--------+----|
> |       0.00 |  30.32 | v2 |
> | 4409973.00 |  59.41 | v1 |
> |       0.00 | 113.06 | v1 |
> | 7349950.00 | 222.34 | v2 |
> #+TBLFM: @I-1$2=vsum(@I..@>);%.2f
> 
> Am I correct to assume that this is at least unexpected, and probably
> erroneous behaviour?
> 
> 
> Guido
> 
> --
> "Consider a spherical bear, in simple harmonic motion..."
> 		-- Professor in the UCB physics department
> 

Re: Unexpected relative reference behaviour

[Guido Van Hoecke]

Hi Carsten,

> @I references are unfortunately not yet supported on the left hand side of a formula.
> I hope that some day they will, but currently this is not the case.

Thanks for the info.


Guido

--
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
		-- George Santayana