G
Greg N.
Excel 2000, 9.0.4402 SR-1
Deleting a row that contains a referenced cell results in a #REF! error
at the referencing cell. But I think that's not how it's supposed to
work. Take this sample worksheet, consisting of 4 rows and 3 columns:
[1] =a2 =a3 =a4
[2] 111
[3] 222
[4] 333
When you enter the cell contents as shown above, the worksheet displays
this:
[1] 111 222 333
[2] 111
[3] 222
[4] 333
Now delete row [3]. This results in cell C1 being changed from "=a4" to
"=a3", and cell B1 being marked as in error. It displays like this:
[1] 111 $REF! 333
[2] 111
[3] 333
But that's not what the help text says. Unter the heading "Delete cells,
rows, or columns", it says:
"... Excel keeps formulas up to date by adjusting absolute references to
the shifted cells to reflect their new locations. However, a formula
that refers to a deleted cell displays the #REF! error value."
The help text talks about *absolute* references. This implies, that
relative references should be left alone. I would have expected this
result:
[1] 111 333
[2] 111
[3] 333
Is this a bug in the code, or in the help text? How can I achieve the
effect I want?
Greg
Deleting a row that contains a referenced cell results in a #REF! error
at the referencing cell. But I think that's not how it's supposed to
work. Take this sample worksheet, consisting of 4 rows and 3 columns:
[1] =a2 =a3 =a4
[2] 111
[3] 222
[4] 333
When you enter the cell contents as shown above, the worksheet displays
this:
[1] 111 222 333
[2] 111
[3] 222
[4] 333
Now delete row [3]. This results in cell C1 being changed from "=a4" to
"=a3", and cell B1 being marked as in error. It displays like this:
[1] 111 $REF! 333
[2] 111
[3] 333
But that's not what the help text says. Unter the heading "Delete cells,
rows, or columns", it says:
"... Excel keeps formulas up to date by adjusting absolute references to
the shifted cells to reflect their new locations. However, a formula
that refers to a deleted cell displays the #REF! error value."
The help text talks about *absolute* references. This implies, that
relative references should be left alone. I would have expected this
result:
[1] 111 333
[2] 111
[3] 333
Is this a bug in the code, or in the help text? How can I achieve the
effect I want?
Greg