T
TKS_Mark
Consider a column of numbers followed directly by a SUM() of those same
numbers. When you insert a new row between the last number and the sum()
cell, the sum() cell doesn't include that new row. Not only is this a
hassle, it also costs in potential missed estimations, and designs.
I realize we can insert a blank thin dummy row in between, but why do we
have to? Why doesn't Excel know that when you insert a row between the last
in a list and the SUM of that list, of course you want to SUM the new
insertion too? I can't remember ever feeling that it was good it works the
way it does.
----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.
http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...b-193db1add836&dg=microsoft.public.excel.misc
numbers. When you insert a new row between the last number and the sum()
cell, the sum() cell doesn't include that new row. Not only is this a
hassle, it also costs in potential missed estimations, and designs.
I realize we can insert a blank thin dummy row in between, but why do we
have to? Why doesn't Excel know that when you insert a row between the last
in a list and the SUM of that list, of course you want to SUM the new
insertion too? I can't remember ever feeling that it was good it works the
way it does.
----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.
http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...b-193db1add836&dg=microsoft.public.excel.misc