Eric S Fraga <e.fr...@ucl.ac.uk> writes:
> Bastien <b...@altern.org> writes:
>
>> Hi Xue, Eric and Dieter,
>>
>> die...@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$-2..@@-1 @r{in the first row up, 3 fields from 2 columns on the left}
>
> Concise and correct! I'm happy with this.
Sorry but I don't understand "in the first row up". Maybe better: The
(or a) row up, 3...
Another grievance with such a terse description for me is although it
may describe the end result - the range - correctly but does not take
into account how the references at hand are working.
But maybe I'm just picking nits here :-)
What about such an approach:
@@-1$-2..@@-1 @r{a range of 3 fields: a row up, from 2 fields on the left .. a
row up}
Dieter
--
Best wishes
H. Dieter Wilhelm
Darmstadt
Germany
