Can a formula produced Cell identity ever be used to extract the contents of the cell ?

Hi Barry,

Sure you don’t. Like you say, if you are familiar with Numbers and in particular with the use of its INDIRECT function, then it would not be peculiar to you.

In my early days of programming, Indirect was a term used to describe a case where; a Bit, Bite, Half word, Word , Double Word etc. to which the start address is placed in another ‘given’ address. ( ‘Indirectly referenced’).

In this context Apple iWord team have, I think, changed that to mean something different.

Again this could be a wrong observation in that their software may be doing just that. However, It is not obvious to Numbers users. One cannot arbitrarily forget what has already been committed to memory, even though there are times when it would be an asset.

From a new Numbers users viewpoint (to me) it looks a bit like an afterthought to resolve a need discovered in earlier software. This is not a criticism just a peculiarity, to me, because it doesn’t seem to doing anything like indirecting. A more obvious use of indirect is the use you put “H2” to in your last example; =INDIRECT(CONCATENATE("C",H2)).

I have found that CONCATENATE will not allow a number to be coupled to a string. It converts the number to a string which is not then usable as a cell reference.

INDIRECT seems to correct this and seems to allow/convert numbers in a string to be read as numbers and thus used as a cell reference. What is indirect about that ? Like you say with continued use, (familiarity) I will discover how extensively it can be used.

Between yourself and Badunit it seems conclusive that in Numbers, a value cannot be pushed to an offset address.

Regards and thanks for your time,

Hi Wayne,

I could be missing something again but; It does aggree with my interpretation. As I pointed out to Barry with his use of H2 in the formula; =INDIRECT(CONCATENATE("C",H2)) the H2 is what I recognise as an indirect. The same cannot be said if the H2 were replaced by a number. It then, seemingly just becomes a means of allowing the 2 in the concatenation to be read as C2 the 2 being a number. If you leave it off you will get a sintax error because C2 is then a string.

I think, again this is a problem of fresh eyes as apposed to eyes used to using Numbers. There is no short cut. I just need to get stuck in, which is what I am doing. If you "old eyes" (the royal "you") don't see that then you are making the same mistake as I did with Badunit s reply and was chastised by Barry. I make no apology for that. Before long I expect I'll be in the same vision tunnel as you oldies.

Regards,

Jerry,

Duly taken on board.

It is not necessary to defend Apple so. I am already converted and commited to using Apple OS, warts and all. I have a number of reasons for prefering it to Windows but I am not going to bury my head in the sand and defend to the hilt. Until recent times and to this day, there are, many indutrial programs that are unavailable for Mac OSs. That IS the fault of Apples past strategy. It has it's faults to. As will any OS, otherwise there would be no need to upgrade year on year. That's, chasing technology and is now a recipe for bleeding money out of customers. Apple are very adapt at that to.

I agree they have gone some way towards compatability but If what you say were strictly true they have really made a hash of it between Excel to Numbers. Which must be there main rival/aversary.

The primary reason for me getting into the nuts and bolts of Numbers so quickly and so deeply and, stiring the pot like I seem to have done, is because I've tried bringing some of my, fairly sophisticated, developed over several years, charts and graphs from Windows Excel into Numbers and it simply could not handle them or even come close. It literally got lost. I realised then, I was going to have to redesign them in and for Numbers or another Apple-Mac based spreadsheet. Not to be unexpected then, a steep learning curve is necessary. I did not expect to have to get into all this aside banter. In spite of what you oldies seem to think I think, I think Numbers can do what I want. It is just a little irksome having to spend the time looking for new ways of doing what has to me been familiar. As an aside, there are some things that, in my opinion, are better in Numbers. It is not necessary to bring those to the forum therfore only the down sides are encountered. You oldies ( old Numbers users not age) don't have to engage in the defensive banter, I know my place. While I am very grateful for any help given by anyone spending their time debating, exchanging views and opinions with other newbies can produce good results to. if I offend the elite it is not intentional. i'd sooner not to have to keep defending myself like this. I want and need to get up to speed with all haste so as not to have to keep wasting time switching back and forth between operating systems. I am not trying to prove anything.

Sorry about the rant. It is not aimed at you especially. I just seem to be getting deeper into opinions than getting solutions to problems.

I first had to defend myself after being advised/accused of not reading the relivant part of the manual which in the end said absolutly nothing about the query. That was followed by snipers like yourself.

I don't want to spend time like this and while I appreciated all the help that has been provided I sadly think I'll have to seek help elsewhere.

Regards.

Hi Jerry,

Alas to time consuming a distraction for me at the moment.

I have no objection to constructive sword play in fact I find it rather fun.

Think I may have just gone crashing in blindly and naively expecting to find an atmospere of cheerful cooperation. I can only blame myself, I am old enough to have known better. No criticism of anyone in particular but it is not in human nature. It only takes one.

I respect, appreciate and thank you very much, your note but I think I'll do what I should have done first; Sit back look in now and then and see how others make out.

You never no I might pick a few tips doing that.

Regards