Bastien <b...@gnu.org> wrote: > Charles <mill...@verizon.net> writes: > >> Perhaps only one #+TBLFM: per table is allowed > > More precisely, hitting C-c C-c on #+TBLFM: will just apply formulas in > *this* line. > > Using several #+TBLFM: lines is sometimes useful when you want to apply > different sets of formulas -- which I think is the use for #+TBLFM: in > Michael's document (but I agree this is confusing there.)
Hi, Bastien. Thanks for looking into this. Let me start by saying that I'm completely satisfied with the mechanism of joining formulas with the "::" notation, and especially with the convenient editing of such formulas with "C-c '". But if the multiple TBLFM lines work as I think you're describing, then I still have some gap in my understanding. Here's my simple test table, with multiple formulas, joined by "::": #+TBLNAME: test1 | 1 | 2 | | | 4 | 5 | | | 7 | 8 | 9 | #+TBLFM: @1$3='(+ 10 7)::@2$3='(+ 11 9)::@3$1=42 If I hit C-c C-c while the point is on the one and only TBLFM line, I get: #+TBLNAME: test1 | 1 | 2 | 17 | | 4 | 5 | 20 | | 42 | 8 | 9 I.e.,exactly the intended result. Here is the same table, but with the formulas spread across three different lines: #+TBLNAME: test2 | 1 | 2 | | | 4 | 5 | | | 7 | 8 | 9 | #+TBLFM: @1$3='(+ 10 7) #+TBLFM: @2$3='(+ 11 9) #+TBLFM: @3$1=42 If I hit C-c C-c while the point is on the FIRST TBLFM line, I get: #+TBLNAME: test2 | 1 | 2 | 17 | | 4 | 5 | | | 7 | 8 | 9 | This is what I expected. If I now proceed to hit C-c C-c while the point is on the SECOND TBLFM line, I get: #+TBLNAME: test2 | 1 | 2 | 17 | | 4 | 5 | | | 7 | 8 | 9 | I.e., there is no change whatsoever. If I then hit C-c C-c while the point is on the THIRD TBLFM line, I get: #+TBLNAME: test2 | 1 | 2 | 17 | | 4 | 5 | | | 7 | 8 | 9 | I.e., again there is no change whatsoever. I might add that if I do carry out these operations with table debugging turned on (C-c {), I do NOT get prompted by the debugger when trying to process the second and third TBLFM lines. As I said above, I'm happy with the "::" solution and am happy to let this topic drop, but I'm eager to expand my Org-mode skills. Please let me know what I'm missing. Thanks again. -- Mike