Hi Andreas,
On Wednesday, 2008-11-26 10:39:58 -0700, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
> > > Given the same reference below (=SUM(['Sheet1'.B4:'Sheet2'.C5])),
> > > [...]
> > > SUM(['Sheet1':'Sheet2'.B4:C5]
> >
> > Yes, that's equivalent. Though it would be SUM('Sheet1':'Sheet2'!B4:C5)
> > in Excel.
>
> I believe in Excel 'Sheet1'.B4:'Sheet2'.C5 refers to many more cells
> than 'Sheet1':'Sheet2'.B4:C5 if there is a sheet between Sheet1 ad
> Sheet2.
Do you mean that in Excel those two have different semantics, and the
first does include all sheets in between where the second does not?
I don't think so, just tried in Excel2007, the first (with ! instead of .)
gave a #VALUE! error, only the second works and evaluates sheets
between.
The expression SUM('Sheet1'!A1:'Sheet1':B1) is accepted and evaluates
correctly only for identical sheets, it seems. Doug or Eric, could you
please confirm or deny?
> So they are not equivalent!
Also Calc includes all sheets between Sheet1 and Sheet2 in a reference
'Sheet1'.B4:'Sheet2'.C5. I think this is expressed by "the cube"
mentioned in my earlier mail.
Eike
--
Automatic string conversions considered dangerous. They are the GOTO statements
of spreadsheets. --Robert Weir on the OpenDocument formula subcommittee's list.
