Technical Discussion
  >> Windows Issues


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.


Pages in this thread: 1 | [2] | >> (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User David_W
(experienced) Sun 03-Feb-13 15:39:21
Print Post

Re: Excel help


[re: DavidFinbarr] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by DavidFinbarr:
In reply to a post by camieabz:
Or you could format the result cell to two decimal places.
That's what I had set, but it was rounding up.
Excel will round to nearest as a default, so 41.9154 will round up to 41.92 when displayed to 2 decimal places. 41.9149 will round down to 41.91 when displayed to 2 decimal places. 41.915 is rounded up to 41.92 to 2 decimal places (at least in Excel 2010).

Standard User DavidFinbarr
(freechataholic) Sun 03-Feb-13 15:57:25
Print Post

Re: Excel help


[re: camieabz] [link to this post]
 
Not when I'm trying to match something that rounds down. wink

A bottle of white, a bottle of red
Perhaps a bottle of rosé instead.
Standard User DavidFinbarr
(freechataholic) Sun 03-Feb-13 16:00:34
Print Post

Re: Excel help


[re: David_W] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by David_W:
Excel will round to nearest as a default, so 41.9154 will round up to 41.92 when displayed to 2 decimal places. 41.9149 will round down to 41.91 when displayed to 2 decimal places. 41.915 is rounded up to 41.92 to 2 decimal places (at least in Excel 2010).


I Know, that was the point of my OP. as I wanted it rounded down smile

A bottle of white, a bottle of red
Perhaps a bottle of rosé instead.


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Standard User XRaySpeX
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sun 03-Feb-13 17:35:45
Print Post

Re: Excel help


[re: David_W] [link to this post]
 
OP knows all that. He happens to want to round down (Floor) not round to nearest (Round).

1999: Freeserve 48K Dial-Up => 2005: Wanadoo 1 Meg BB => 2007: Orange 2 Meg BB => 2008: Orange 8 Meg LLU => 2010: Orange 16 Meg LLU => 2011: Orange 19 Meg WBC
Standard User David_W
(experienced) Sun 03-Feb-13 18:31:52
Print Post

Re: Excel help


[re: XRaySpeX] [link to this post]
 
I know all this too - I was explaining why rounding was no good in response to camieabz

Standard User XRaySpeX
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sun 03-Feb-13 18:50:31
Print Post

Re: Excel help


[re: David_W] [link to this post]
 
Confuse us then. You were responding:
David_W [re: DavidFinbarr]

(experienced)
Sun 03-Feb-13 15:39:21

Re: Excel help
There's a hint of grandmother sucking eggs round here grin

1999: Freeserve 48K Dial-Up => 2005: Wanadoo 1 Meg BB => 2007: Orange 2 Meg BB => 2008: Orange 8 Meg LLU => 2010: Orange 16 Meg LLU => 2011: Orange 19 Meg WBC
Standard User David_W
(experienced) Sun 03-Feb-13 20:29:55
Print Post

Re: Excel help


[re: XRaySpeX] [link to this post]
 
XRaySpex,

This is not the first time you've jumped on me when you've taken a reply of mine as addressed directly to the poster being replied to. There is a fine line between sarcasm / acerbicness and being offensive. We all make mistakes - the last time you jumped on me over this, I had mixed you up with the original poster. This time, I didn't repeat that mistake - but if I had made that sort of mistake, is it necessary to focus so much attention on me making that mistake?

In this textual medium, with no non-verbal clues, it's sometimes hard to pick up the intended meaning beyond the literal. The smiley did not stop your post coming across as offensive to me.


This was a case of the relevant content to base a reply on being found elsewhere in the thread than the post raising the question - so do you thread based on poster (breaking the flow of ideas), or on content (breaking the conversational links)? I chose to thread based on content in this case - but this means that the reply was not aimed directly at the poster whose content I'm building on. I hoped people can make the obvious contextual links within the thread - someone clearly wasn't understanding the original poster's problem, so I built on a later post to explain exactly why the default behaviour was not appropriate for the original poster's needs. You're technically adept and I'm not surprised you'd understood the original poster's issue. Someone else was still struggling to understand.

I'm no great fan of drawing attention to individual posters as I don't like showing people up.


You hate the length of my posts, you hate my threading and you seem prefer a fast moving forum of very short replies, whereas I prefer slightly longer explanations.

You aren't the thread police. If you hate my posts that much, please keep your counsel to yourself and put me in your ignore list. I'd greatly prefer that to you continuing to snipe at me in public and by PM.

This is a public reply because when you sniped at me around a week ago by PM, you deleted my reply without reading it, then asked me to send it again. I gave up, on the basis that you couldn't be bothered to show any care in handling what I wrote the first time, so why should I bother to resend?


Can we find a way to live and let live peaceably? Thanks for your attention.

Standard User XRaySpeX
(eat-sleep-adslguide) Sun 03-Feb-13 21:26:22
Print Post

Re: Excel help


[re: David_W] [link to this post]
 
I don't recollect you mixing me with another poster. The 1st time I remember we crossed swords was when I PM'ed you. There was no "jumping on" or "sniping" involved.
In reply to a post by David_W:
I chose to thread based on content in this case - but this means that the reply was not aimed directly at the poster whose content I'm building on.
That's what's confusing. You replied directly to (and quoted) the OP with what he already knew and stated. Indeed he took your reply and replied immediately to you in the same manner as I did. I think more peeps view these threads in logical rather than physical order. This isn't a conversation after all.
In reply to a post by David_W:
so I built on a later post to explain exactly why the default behaviour was not appropriate for the original poster's needs.
There is no mention of lack of "appropriateness" or "goodness" in your response. It might have made more sense had there been. It was simply a factual description of the standard rounding algorithm.
In reply to a post by David_W:
you deleted my reply without reading it, then asked me to send it again
You were making false and non-obvious assumptions. I did read your reply and intended to reply to it, reasonably, but I simply hit the Delete button by mistake (and I told you that when I asked you to resend). A most common and simple error, particularly the way the buttons are positioned.

1999: Freeserve 48K Dial-Up => 2005: Wanadoo 1 Meg BB => 2007: Orange 2 Meg BB => 2008: Orange 8 Meg LLU => 2010: Orange 16 Meg LLU => 2011: Orange 19 Meg WBC
Pages in this thread: 1 | [2] | >> (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to