Well, not *all* that worng, but some of my past work could have been more efficient.
Mr Stoner might like this; a couple of you other geekazoids might appreciate it too.
Or you might already be aware and I’m well behind the times…
I’m surprised I’ve not come across it before, but happened to stumble on it today while looking for a way to fudge wildcards into Sumproduct/be able to avoid using a UDF to get around its inability to reference Indirect()/not have to use arrays of strings/use cell references and ting.
Clever but not exactly readable. I’d put it in the same category as complex array formulae – avoid unless absolutely necessary. Sometimes I’d prefer to use a hidden sheet/range to improve readability and simplify maintenance
Rob largely disagrees, as most of his work is way beyond the average user anyway and works nicely-nice. One of the points of this method is that it is infinitely more readable than nested Sumproduct()s.
He/she/it does, however, agree that if the piece of work is to be passed on to someone/thing that wouldn’t be able to follow it, then a step-by-step process for calculations is preferable.
Most of the people one comes across (NHS) are stuck in the realm of scrappy data & copy/pasting, so can’t follow a thing one does, anyhoo. One thinks one might as well use the tools available to myself.
Most of the people one comes across (NHS) are stuck in the realm of scrappy data & copy/pasting, so can’t follow a thing one does, anyhoo. One thinks one might as well use the tools available to myself
I’m an (un)enthusiastic amateur excelist working in the NHS trying to bugger up my own data in the absence of any meaningful support. MrExcel is my real dad.