Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #406926

Re: spreadsheet ergonomics

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/7/17, 8:46 PM, in article D50DAB41.9DAA9%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com,
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 4/7/17, 7:11 PM, in article 0hjz030ga.by@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
> ... 
> 
>>>> Any set of tabular data can be considered a table.  When you create
>>>> a table in Numbers, if you do not use the entire maximum column and
>>>> row limits, do you say that it is not a table?
>>> 
>>> Do I say the table is not a table? Um, no. That would be silly. But I do not
>>> claim that different parts of the same table are different tables, as you
>>> do.
> 
> Do you see why your question here showed your ignorance of what a table is?
> If a table has data only in a certain range that does not make the rest of
> the table cease to be a table.
> 
>>>> Of course you don't.
>>> 
>>> Right: I call a table a table, not a range in a table a table.
> 
> Did you even understand this? Do you understand the difference between a
> range in a table and a table?
>  
>>>> But how can it be a table if you're not maxing it out?
>>> 
>>> A shoe is a shoe even when your foot is not in it. A sole of a shoe does not
>>> become a shoe, though, even if you reference it as one.
>>> 
>>>> That seems to be what you're saying.
>>> 
>>> Not even slightly. I mean, really, it is not even remotely connected to
>>> anything I said. Hey, I said you said something about rows you did not
>>> (though understandably I was confused by your lack of proper terminology)...
>>> here you are claiming I am saying something I never did. OK. Good test to
>>> see if you are as honest as I am.
> 
> Do you see why what you claimed it "seemed" like I was saying was not at all
> what I was saying?
> 
>>>> So given that it *is* still a table without using the all the cells, how
>>>> does that subset of the maximum cells anchored at A0 differ from any other
>>>> subset?
>>>> 
>>> Assuming you mean: Given it is a table how does one range differ from
>>> another? If so it is because they are different ranges... in the case of
>>> what
>>> you are referring to they are not even overlapping ranges.
>>> 
>>> If that is NOT what you mean then I would need you to explain what you are
>>> even trying to say.
>>> 
>> 
>> You seem to have a density problem.
>> 
>> <quote>
>> From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]:
>> 
>>   table
>>       n 1: a set of data arranged in rows and columns; "see table 1"
>>            [syn: {table}, {tabular array}]
>> 
>> </quote>
> 
> Here, maybe this will help you:
> 
> <http://n-t-roff.github.io/sc.1.pdf>
>     -----
>     Next, it reads the options from the command line, and finally, it
>     reads in the file or files specified on the command line and
>     presents the data in a table organized as rows and columns of cells.
>     -----
> A table. Not a set of ranges we call tables.
> 
>     -----
>     If invoked without a file argument, the table is initially empty,
>     unless it is running in a pipeline, in which case it will read its
>     data from the standard input.
>     ------
> A table. Not a set of ranges we call tables.
> 
>     -----
>     The rest of the screen forms a window looking at a portion of the
>     table. The total number of display rows and columns available, hence
>     the number of table rows and columns displayed, is set by curses(3)
>     and may be overridden by setting the LINES and COLUMNS environment
>     variables, respectively.
>     -----
> A table. Not a set of ranges we call tables.
> 
>     -----
>     If a number is given, sc will search for a cell containing that
>     number. Searches for either strings or numbers proceed forward from
>     the current cell, wrapping back to a0 at the end of the table, and
>     terminate at the current cell if the string or number is not found.
>     -----
> Yeah, it wraps back to the start of the table. The full table. Not the range
> (though you might have an option to limit it to a range, a range is not
> generally the full table -- though it can be).
> 
> But maybe that is not clear enough for you. So let us look at what a range
> is:
>     -----
>     Built-in Range Functions
> 
>     These functions return numeric values. The @sum, @prod, @avg,
>     @count, @max, @min, and @stddev functions may take an optional
>     second argument which is an expression that is to be evaluated for
>     each cell in the specified range to determine which cells to include
>     in the function. Only those cells for which the expression evaluates
>     to true (non-zero) will be used in calculating the value of the
>     function.
>     -----
> Hey, the SUM function you are using does not use the whole table but a range
> (and it likely cannot get a sum of itself so that range cannot be the whole
> table).
> 
>     -----
>     Range Commands
> 
>     Range operations affect a rectangular region on the screen defined
>     by the upper left and lower right cells in the region.
>     -----
> Yeah... those ranges you call tables in your ONE table... they are ranges in
> your ONE table.
> 
OK, did more research and found a bit of a middle ground in the use of the
word table. Excel actually lets you set a range into a "table" within a
sheet. I wish they had used a different term, say a sub-table or, as you
called it, a "pseudo-table"... and in the past they used to call this a
"list", which also works, I suppose (though it is not very clear).

But they did not keep the name list, they went with table -- though for
their current naming this makes some sense: the whole page (the sheet) is
not deemed a table. In sc, of course, it is.

Still, this "pseudo-table" or "list" or, now, Excel table has a lot of
things that make it work as a unit in the way a range (which is how you are
using the term "table") does not.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-07 09:03 -0700
  Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-07 09:43 -0700
  Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-08 00:24 +0000
    Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-07 18:15 -0700
      Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-08 01:41 +0000
        Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-07 18:58 -0700
          Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-08 02:11 +0000
            Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-07 20:46 -0700
              Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-07 21:20 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-08 05:57 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-07 23:12 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-08 06:23 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-07 23:44 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-04-08 07:33 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-08 00:47 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 10:28 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2017-04-09 14:00 -0400
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 11:09 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 11:25 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-04-09 22:01 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 15:40 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 15:48 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-09 22:30 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-09 15:42 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 08:45 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-10 16:46 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 09:58 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-10 19:07 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 12:25 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 12:36 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Mark Garcia <markymark1901z@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-10 19:44 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 13:00 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 12:25 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-10 19:35 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 12:37 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-10 19:47 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 12:57 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 13:04 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-10 20:17 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 13:27 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-10 20:43 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 13:55 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2017-04-10 22:36 +0000
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2017-04-10 16:10 -0500
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 14:18 -0700
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2017-04-10 17:01 -0500
                Re: spreadsheet ergonomics Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-10 12:48 -0700

csiph-web