Anyone else spot this in the Users mailing list?

C.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [users] Filters - mistake in wiki documentation?
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:05:07 +0000
From: Brian Barker <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]

At 13:32 18/11/2010 +0000, Phil Hibbs wrote:
Can someone please confirm if this is correct:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/Calc_Guide/Filters
"After applying a filter, some rows are visible and some rows are
not. If you select multiple rows in one operation, you will also
select the invisible rows contained between the selected visible
rows. Operations, such as delete, act on all of the selected rows.
To avoid this problem, you must individually select each of the
filtered rows using the control key. "

That does not match my experience, but I'm running Go-oo on this
machine rather than OOo, is this a difference in behaviour between
these two versions? My copy is deleting only the visible filtered
rows and values.

The help text in my OpenOffice 3.1.1 for Windows XP says "When you
select multiple rows from an area where a filter was applied, then
this selection can include rows that are visible and rows that are
hidden by the filter. If you then apply formatting, or delete the
selected rows, this action then applies only to the visible rows. The
hidden rows are not affected. This is the opposite to rows that you
have hidden manually by the Format - Rows - Hide Rows command.
Manually hidden rows are deleted when you delete a selection that
contains them."

This contradicts the web site version you quote.  And yes: my version
(like yours) seems to follow the help text's claims, not the web site's.

Brian Barker


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to