OpenOffice.org Forum at OOoForum.orgThe OpenOffice.org Forum
 
 [Home]   [FAQ]   [Search]   [Memberlist]   [Usergroups]   [Register
 [Profile]   [Log in to check your private messages]   [Log in

Shame: v2.3 and still no R1C1

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    OOoForum.org Forum Index -> OpenOffice.org Calc
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pstrg
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 5:08 am    Post subject: Shame: v2.3 and still no R1C1 Reply with quote

A fresh new release and still no R1C1...

Please do remember that R1C1has nothing to do with Excel - it is a replica of the usual matrix coordinate notation, as anyone who once studied math knows.
A1 notation being the default, most people seems not to realize that R1C1 is in fact the natural way to refer to a cell (remember, past column 26, there comes double letters like AA and only gets worse).

Well, one still may stick to Novell OO (2.1) to enjoy the feature.
This side of OOo, is there a reason to neglect introducing it for so long?

------------------------
Quiz for non-believers: Please answer quickly: which column is cell BE2?

Quiz tip: It's the same column as R2C57
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Akria
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 3
Location: Grimsby, England

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I suppose one reason could be referring to cells.

What if I want to refer to the first row, first column?
Currently it's A1. Hard to get confused there.

However, using R1C1 notation it would be 11. Now, what does that mean? Eleven or one one?
It gets worse with each additional digit. Thirteenth row, column 1: 131. One hundred and thirty one? Thirteen one? One thirty one?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
pstrg
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Akria wrote:
I suppose one reason could be referring to cells.

What if I want to refer to the first row, first column?
Currently it's A1. Hard to get confused there.

However, using R1C1 notation it would be 11. Now, what does that mean? Eleven or one one?
It gets worse with each additional digit. Thirteenth row, column 1: 131. One hundred and thirty one? Thirteen one? One thirty one?


Hi!
You're probably not familiar with R1C1 notation...
First row, first column is notated R1C1 (not 11 !)
Thirteenth row, column 1 is R13C1 (not 131 !)
Thirteenth row, column 57 is R13C57 - what about this in A1 notation?
Anyway, please note also that the French language version implements R1C1 (Novell version too).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Villeroy
Super User
Super User


Joined: 04 Oct 2004
Posts: 10106
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Akria wrote:
I suppose one reason could be referring to cells.

What if I want to refer to the first row, first column?
Currently it's A1. Hard to get confused there.
...

It's hard to get confused with $A$1.
Relative A1 refers to any other cell when you copy across.
R1C1 notation is quite clear about this: R[-1]C[-1] in B2 refers to relative A1.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David
Super User
Super User


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 5668
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Such arguments are futile. They accomplish nothing, except to express personal preference, which is usually largely due to prejudice gained through contracted use of one rather than another, rather than an acquired use of both over a period of time. Such argument is given in a bilingual country for not learning the two languages [I'm guilty of that myself to some extent], or also for preferring one car type to another. I'm not fully bilingual, but can move as readily from one program to another, can see precisely the same logic in several types of programming language even if the syntax changes somewhat, and can drive either automatic or stick shift, the one just as readily as the other, slipping in and out of one to the other without further thought. Having begun with Visicalc over 25 years ago, and moved through Lotus, Quattro Pro, Excel, Calc, and a variety of other smaller versions, I can type [and understand] either notation, the one equally as readily as the other. In fact, I got started by hacking [no text, notes ...nothing] through Visicalc until it made sense from nothing. Surely, each has advantages over the other in different context and usage, but also each has its workaround for the disadvantage that each might exhibit in certain instances.

Which [numerical] column? Why does that matter, except in some odd occasion for some individual purpose? It certainly does not matter so far as the logic of the programming is concerned. So ...what's the real problem here, aside from stubbornness perhaps, and who really cares? Both notations work for the purpose, just as do two or more languages, and "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Oh, yes, I'm also equally at home using either English or Metric measuring units, but also took the time in early studies in physics using them back and forth until the differences blurred into oblivion, and the study of physics became the real issue and challenge. What's in a name? There are much more important issues to consider. The real learning came when there was understanding that the units were entirely arbitrary, as is this choice of notation.

If it's really that important, then I'd suggest a study of hexadecimal arithmetic, computer architecture, machine level programming... and develop a new, better program... or use the one already available that might be personally preferable, balancing, as usual, results against cost. It remains a matter of personal preference and choice. Be grateful for small mercies.

P.S. "Well, one still may stick to Novell OO (2.1) to enjoy the feature. " Go for it. No-one is selling this product, just here to help others where possible who have some difficulties accomplishing certain tasks. I've often referred people to other alternatives for certain tasks, so that is not an issue either.

David.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beornan
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sure, I'll agree it is a preference, and I can operate with both styles just fine.

But one benefit I get from R1C1 reference is when I'm scanning a sheet for consistent referential links (or more specifically, for inconsistent referential links) the R1C1 style jumps out when there's a problem. Going down a column looking at the formula, you'll see something like:
RC[-1]-RC[-5]
RC[-1]-RC[-5]
RC[-1]-RC[-5]
RC[-1]-RC[-5]
R[-1]C[-1]-R[-1]C[-5]
RC[-1]-RC[-5]
RC[-1]-RC[-5]
RC[-1]-RC[-5]
And you'll realize at what point the reference stayed with a moved cell instead of copied with a duplicate cell (something I commonly encounter when people corrupt our history tables). Similar layout in A1 style would be:
A7-A3
B7-B3
C7-C3
D7-D3
D7-D3
F7-F3
G7-G3
H7-H3
In which when you are scanning and only see one-cell's formula at a time, it doesn't jump out as quickly since all the letters are changing on the fly anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pstrg
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
Such arguments are futile. They accomplish nothing, except to express personal preference, which is usually largely due to prejudice gained through contracted use of one rather than another, rather than an acquired use of both over a period of time.

David.


Thank you for taking your time with a long argument.
Given the tone of your reply, it seems that I may have somehow been offensive; if it was due to the word "shame" may I apologize - blame my insufficient command of the English language.

It's because I'm really interested in seeing OO evolve and gain even broader acceptance that I expressed frustration for not seeing an (already implemented elsewhere) feature missing.
Personal preference - yes, of course.
One of the blessings of nowadays software is precisely the possibility to adapt to personal preferences - menus, styles, skins, everything; preferences that are either futile or essential depending upon the user.
On my original post I took the care to stress that R1C1 has nothing to do with Excel because I read another post in which someone defended omission of the feature because it was an Excel thing (and as such, an evil thing) - mere lack of knowledge...

I also mentioned that OO is not clever enough to read my user's preferences and gracefully adjust to them.
OK, but why choose as default something so parochial as the traditional British Imperial Units which are (still) used only in the US and UK?

If that's not clear enough, I hereby state that I'm most grateful for the obviously huge and continuous effort of all those who generously brought us OO - not a small mercy.
I would not be frustrated if I were not interested - one tends to be simply indifferent to things one does not love.

Yes, I will stick with Novell but still hope that this particular (and more active) version will eventually be enriched with an additional feature that may probably be found useful by much more than one stubborn user.

p.s. Meanwhile, let us all beware of eating too much Freedom Fries - they're definitely not good for the health.


Last edited by pstrg on Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LargePrime
General User
General User


Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think NOT including a R1C1 reference system is simply a priority thing. How many users even know what R1C1 really is?

To be honest I would guess that, internally, something similar to R1C1 is used, and then translated back and forth to and from A1.

As a hard core Excell user migrating to OO I have been frustrated by this missing feature.

The reason I find it so useful is that it greatly simplifies my code for referring to other cells dynamically.

The formula of a cell can be
"=R" & MyRowCalcFunction & "C" & MyColumnCalcFunction
very simple.

However, I suggest, a similar A1 reference is more awkward, both to read, and to calculate. Granted if you create a base 26 translation function, that might make it "easier."

Honestly, everyone should have learned R1C1. It is just simpler. But someone decided otherwise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Villeroy
Super User
Super User


Joined: 04 Oct 2004
Posts: 10106
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The formula of a cell can be
"=R" & MyRowCalcFunction & "C" & MyColumnCalcFunction
very simple.

This would return a string until you wrap it with INDIRECT() and if I remember correctly, it would fail if R1C1 notation is turned off.

INDEX and OFFSET works with all spreadsheets:
INDEX($A$1:$IV$65536;MyRowCalcFunction;MyColumnCalcFunction)
OFFSET($A$1;MyRowCalcFunction -1;MyColumnCalcFunction -1;resizeRows;resizeColumns)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MEW69
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:24 am    Post subject: Hidden Feature Reply with quote

To my big suprise I found this thread where a discussion was going on about preference etc...

However my search for this topic started with a former MsExcel file which displayed the R1C1 style within OpenOffice and I wanted to turn it off.

So could it be that this option is set in an MsExcel file and that OpenOffice supports it already, yet does not make the option user definable?

I hope to receive some feedback from an knowledgable person who knows about this support already present in OO, and not continue the preference or no-preference talk. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Villeroy
Super User
Super User


Joined: 04 Oct 2004
Posts: 10106
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've seen RC notation in one of those "special builds" of a Linux distribution. If I remember right there was a menu option Menu:Tools>Contents>R1C1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pstrg
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Villeroy wrote:
I've seen RC notation in one of those "special builds" of a Linux distribution. If I remember right there was a menu option Menu:Tools>Contents>R1C1

Not only Novell 2.1, but also the latest release has the option.
From info on Novell Edition 2.3:
* Adds support for 'R1C1' style addresses.

Still surprised that the "main" edition lacks the feature.
Even if most people somehow don't bother for it, "quod abundat non nocet".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
drking
Power User
Power User


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 91

PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe that R1C1 is part of the ODFF implementation schedule (target OOo3.0)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    OOoForum.org Forum Index -> OpenOffice.org Calc All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group