What I would like to see in Excel 2016

[Robert Mika]

Is anyone going to send this to Steve?

 

[Colin Legg]

A couple more (I'm constraining myself to some realistic ones from my wishlist) which spring to mind:

A Workbook.Calculate() method. It's a mystery why this doesn't exist already.

A worksheet function which let's you specify the bounds and spacing and then returns a numeric array like {1,2,3,4} or {2;4;6;8}. This would save us having to use the volatile constructs such as ROWS(1:10) etc.

 

[Jon von der Heyden]

A couple more (I'm constraining myself to some realistic ones from my wishlist) which spring to mind:

A Workbook.Calculate() method. It's a mystery why this doesn't exist already.

A worksheet function which let's you specify the bounds and spacing and then returns a numeric array like {1,2,3,4} or {2;4;6;8}. This would save us having to use the volatile constructs such as ROWS(1:10) etc.

Yes, definitely seconded!

Maybe I should pull this into one list. Any chance MS would give the list any serious consideration or would I be wasting my time?

 

[njimack]

- Allow formulae as table headings. Currently you can't even link table headings to cells in another sheet.
- Stop sparklines plotting blank/zero cells

 

[Peter_SSs]

In vba, enhancements to the existing Filter function.

1. Look for an Exact match, rather than a partial match. Perhaps
Filter(sourcesrray, match[, include[, compare[, exact]]])

exact would be an optional Boolean value and the default would need to be False to allow backwards compatibility.

2. Some way to return the index(es) in the original array of the elements that are returned in the Filtered array.

Probably need to be a new function and I don't know if it is feasible but ray:

3. A function to allow filtering of arrays that contain more than one dimension.

 

[Robert Mika]

In vba, enhancements to the existing Filter function.

1. Look for an Exact match, rather than a partial match. Perhaps
Filter(sourcesrray, match[, include[, compare[, exact]]])

exact would be an optional Boolean value and the default would need to be False to allow backwards compatibility.

It would be good as well to have the same standart Excel function with Exact match.
ike FIND.EXACT

 

[Peter_SSs]

It would be good as well to have the same standart Excel function with Exact match.
ike FIND.EXACT

Perhaps I don't understand what you have in mind, but don't we already have that with one of these?

=VLOOKUP("Ted",A1:A100,1,FALSE)

=MATCH("Ted",A1:A100,FALSE)



Does make me think about VLOOKUP/HLOOKUP with "instance" though.

VLOOKUP(lookup_value, table_array, col_index_num, [range_lookup], [instance])
(default instance = 1)


so you could drag a formula like this down to look up all the instances of finding "Ted".

=VLOOKUP("Ted",A1:A100,1,FALSE,ROWS(C$2:C2))

 

[Rick Rothstein]

It would be good as well to have the same standart Excel function with Exact match.
ike FIND.EXACT

Perhaps I don't understand what you have in mind, but don't we already have that with one of these?

=VLOOKUP("Ted",A1:A100,1,FALSE)

=MATCH("Ted",A1:A100,FALSE)

I think he means to return the position of a word, as a stand-alone word, within a larger text string. For example, find the name "Don" within "Don't talk to Don today", by-passing the letters "Don" in "Don't". To that end, a while ago, I created a function that can be used as a UDF with that particular functionality at its core... it is described in my mini-blog article here...

InStrExact - Find Location Of A Word, As A Word, Not Embedded Within Another Word

 

[Robert Mika]

I think he means to return the position of a word, as a stand-alone word, within a larger text string. For example, find the name "Don" within "Don't talk to Don today", by-passing the letters "Don" in "Don't". To that end, a while ago, I created a function that can be used as a UDF with that particular functionality at its core... it is described in my mini-blog article here...

InStrExact - Find Location Of A Word, As A Word, Not Embedded Within Another Word

Yes Rick.
This is exactly what I mean.
Peter, we had many occasion to meet on s post where you have pointed out to some of my solutions.
This function(or Rick's code) would solve many of this problem,.

BTW.Rick, I can not see your code without registering.
Do not you think that this will rather discourage people to come back?
This form of persuasion does not work for me personally.

 

[Rick Rothstein]

BTW.Rick, I can not see your code without registering.
Do not you think that this will rather discourage people to come back?
This form of persuasion does not work for me personally.

I was not aware that registration was necessary to view it... I thought that not registering simply meant you could not make a comment to the thread. This is a sub-forum that the forum owner's carved out for me to use as I like, so I use it as a mini-blog type site. I will have to check this out with the forum owners in order to see what is what. Did you register? If not, I can send you a copy of the article via email. If you want to do that, email me at rickDOTnewsATverizonDOTnet (replace the obvious with the obvious).