Dieter Wilhelm <die...@duenenhof-wilhelm.de> wrote:
> 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$-2..@@-1 @r{in the first row up, 3 fields from 2 columns on the
> >> left}
> >
> > Concise and correct! I'm happy with this.
>
> Sorry but I don't understand "in the first row up". Maybe better: The
> (or a) row up, 3...
>
> Another grievance with such a terse description for me is although it
> may describe the end result - the range - correctly but does not take
> into account how the references at hand are working.
>
> But maybe I'm just picking nits here :-)
>
No, I think it's unclear as well (I hadn't paid attention to the thread
previously.
Sorry for joining the party late).
> What about such an approach:
>
> @@-1$-2..@@-1 @r{a range of 3 fields: a row up, from 2 fields on the left ..
> a row up}
>
Perhaps factoring out the row part makes it clearer? Also, presenting it as a
movement from
the current cell might help - at least that's how I tend to read these specs:
"a range of 3 fields: up one row, two columns over to the left .. the current
column (implicitly specified)"
Nick
