I tried to repro the problem from your description but it seems fine. I'd
like to see your example if it's simple. Email it here: (e-mail address removed).
--
Jim
|I have an input that consists of a number. The number is shown in the
formula
| bar in addtion to showing in the cell. The cell address, say D6, shows in
the
| open area to the far left on the formula bar where I assigned the name in
the
| first place. I have previously assigned cell D6 to be named H1L and it
shows
| up in the Name Manager and Use in Formula sections as H1L. In the Name
| Manager, it shows as it should with the absolute cell reference of $D$6
| prefixed by the sheet name.
|
| Before I named cell D6 as H1L, I was able to trace dependents from cell
D6.
| I went through the spreadsheet to all the dependents and substituted H1L
| everywhere that D6 was used in a formula. Now when I click on cell D6 and
hit
| the trace dependents button, I get a message saying the cell has no
| dependents which sort of makes sense since its still cell D6 and still has
a
| number entry even though its been named H1L. Thus my original question. I
| must not be assigning names to the cells correctly although everything is
| still calculating correctly as far as I can tell.
|
| I'm happy to send you an example but I'm not sure how to send through the
| forum.
|
| Thanks for any guidance!
| Joe
|
| "Jim Rech" wrote:
|
| > In a quick test now I found that Trace Dependents and Precedents works
fine
| > in Excel 2007 using names in the formulas.
| >
| > If you can reproduce the problem in a simple example perhaps you could
| > provide us with the exact steps.
| >
| > --
| > Jim
| > | > |I just changed several spreadsheet inputs to "named" cells in order to
| > | understand the formulas better. Once the cell references are changed
to
| > | "names", I can no longer audit those cells using the "trace
dependents"
| > | auditing feature. Can anyone tell me how to do this, or if its even
| > possible?
| > | Thanks,
| > | JB
| >
| >
