2014-02-15 16:19 GMT+01:00 Michael Brand <michael.ch.br...@gmail.com>:
> What about this?: > > |--------------+------+-----| > | activity | Time | sub | > |--------------+------+-----| > | Activity A | 3 | | > |--------------+------+-----| > | Activity B | 5 | 34 | > | Activity C | 2 | 34 | > | Activity D | 7 | 34 | > | Activity E | 8 | 34 | > | Activity F | 12 | 34 | > |--------------+------+-----| > | Activity 1 | 9 | 18 | > | Activity 2 | 2 | 18 | > | Activity 3 | 4 | 18 | > | Activity 4 | 3 | 18 | > |--------------+------+-----| > | Activity I | 23 | 111 | > | Activity II | 51 | 111 | > | Activity III | 37 | 111 | > |--------------+------+-----| > | | 163 | | > |--------------+------+-----| > #+TBLFM: @>$2 = vsum(@<<<..@>>) :: @<<<$3..@>>$3 = vsum(@-I$2..@+I$2) > It is certainly a big step in the right direction. I have to study it to understand what it does. (You also changed the part I already had. I have to look to see why that is better.) There are a few problems with it: - As your example shows, the first element is not filled and when the first range only has one element ... - I would like to have only the last element of the range filled. But it is certainly helpful: thanks. -- Cecil Westerhof
