Hi,

I'm reading 11 columns in several hundred rows, processing them and
writing them back to a different sheet.

At the moment each value is assigned to a variant and after finishing
each row, they're sent to a function and and written to the other
sheet.

This lets me use one 'With' clause in the main routine and one
in the function.

I could write each one as it's done though, and wouldn't need to
assign a variant, nor call a function. Instead I'd need a pile of
nested 'With' loops.

Which way is best, please ? Or is it insignificant?

Thanks - Kirk

It's not clear what your current code looks like, or why an alternative
might require lots of nested for loops, so it's difficult to suggest which
approach is "best".

Best performance or best maintainability ? If the run time is not noticably
different then maintainability should trump.

Tim

<kirkm> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi,
>
> I'm reading 11 columns in several hundred rows, processing them and
> writing them back to a different sheet.
>
> At the moment each value is assigned to a variant and after finishing
> each row, they're sent to a function and and written to the other
> sheet.
>
> This lets me use one 'With' clause in the main routine and one
> in the function.
>
> I could write each one as it's done though, and wouldn't need to
> assign a variant, nor call a function. Instead I'd need a pile of
> nested 'With' loops.
>
> Which way is best, please ? Or is it insignificant?
>
> Thanks - Kirk

Perhaps you should post your code for comments

--
Don Guillett
Microsoft MVP Excel
SalesAid Software
(E-Mail Removed)
"kirkm" wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi,
>
> I'm reading 11 columns in several hundred rows, processing them and
> writing them back to a different sheet.
>
> At the moment each value is assigned to a variant and after finishing
> each row, they're sent to a function and and written to the other
> sheet.
>
> This lets me use one 'With' clause in the main routine and one
> in the function.
>
> I could write each one as it's done though, and wouldn't need to
> assign a variant, nor call a function. Instead I'd need a pile of
> nested 'With' loops.
>
> Which way is best, please ? Or is it insignificant?
>
> Thanks - Kirk

On Sat, 16 May 2009 16:02:26 +1200, kirkm wrote:

Thanks guys.... I couldn't impose my code on anyone though!
As well as bad it's extremely complex!

I'll leave it as is... it's fast enough and does what's required

Cheers - Kirk