Nick Dokos <nicholas.do...@hp.com> writes:
> 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)"
"a range of three fields in the row before the current row, starting two
columns before the current column and ending in the current
column."
--
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com
