 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussionsAccessExcelInfoPathOutlookPowerPointPublisherWordDirectoryUser Groups Related Topics Outlook ExpressInternet ExplorerWindowsMS Server ProductsMore Topics ... |
MS Office Forum / Excel / New Users / June 2005Copy and pasting columns that are not adjacent
Is there a way to copy and paste columns that are not adjacent i.e. the are on the same rows but there are columns in between that I do not wan to copy (and do not want to move adjacent) - they are to go into autoca as an embedded file. What if the columns are not on the same rows, ca you still copy and paste seperate parts of a spreadsheet in one go/fil Turnipboy, If it's really embedding (regular good old OLE), it's embedding the entire workbook anyway -- it doesn't embed just selected parts of a file. If that's the case, just select the stuff, including the columns you don't want, and embed them. Then double click the embedded object in AutoCad, and hide the columns you don't want. Then click outside of it to get out of Edit Mode.  SignatureEarl Kiosterud www.smokeylake.com/ ------------------------------------------- > Is there a way to copy and paste columns that are not adjacent i.e. they > are on the same rows but there are columns in between that I do not want > to copy (and do not want to move adjacent) - they are to go into autocad > as an embedded file. What if the columns are not on the same rows, can > you still copy and paste seperate parts of a spreadsheet in one go/file Is there a way to locate the first place of numeric data in a code like this: TA002653 here the numeric data starts from 0 , the third digit PIT207212 here the numeric data starts from 2, the fourth digit GUGC123 here the numeric data starts from 1, the fifth digit How can I get the result ? Thank you very much. Geoffrey Try... =MIN(SEARCH({0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9},A1&"0123456789")) Hope this helps! > Is there a way to locate the first place of numeric data in a code like > this: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Thank you very much. > Geoffrey This assumes that there's at least one numeric digit within the code. > Try... > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Thank you very much. > > Geoffrey "Domenic" <domenic22@sympatico.ca> wrote... >This assumes that there's at least one numeric digit within the code. > >>Try... >> >>=MIN(SEARCH({0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9},A1&"0123456789")) ... No such assumption! The reason for appending the string of all decimal numerals to A1 in the 2nd arg to SEARCH is to prevent errors when there's no decimal numeral in A1. The formula return LEN(A1)+1 when there are no decimal numerals in A1. After posting the formula, I have to admit that I wasn't too happy with it, for the very reason you cited. Maybe... =MATCH(TRUE,ISNUMBER(MID(A1,ROW(INDIRECT("1:"&LEN(A1))),1)+0),0) ...confirmed with CONTROL+SHIFT+ENTER. > "Domenic" <domenic22@sympatico.ca> wrote... > >This assumes that there's at least one numeric digit within the code. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > decimal numeral in A1. The formula return LEN(A1)+1 when there are no > decimal numerals in A1. "Domenic" <domenic22@sympatico.ca> wrote... >After posting the formula, I have to admit that I wasn't too >happy with it, for the very reason you cited. Maybe... > >=MATCH(TRUE,ISNUMBER(MID(A1,ROW(INDIRECT("1:"&LEN(A1))),1)+0),0) ... >>>>Try... >>>> >>>>=MIN(SEARCH({0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9},A1&"0123456789")) ... Your first one is MUCH, MUCH better than your latest one whether or not you fully understand it. I wasn't criticizing your first formula, just the inaccuracy of your caveat. Appending the string of decimal numerals to A1 isn't necessarily a cheap operation, and calling SEARCH repeatedly isn't cheap either. However, they're cheaper than calling MID and ISNUMBER repeatedly. Also, INDIRECT is volatile, so your latest formula would be recalculated all the time, whereas your first formula would only be recalculated when A1 changes. > Your first one is MUCH, MUCH better than your latest one whether or not you > fully understand it. I wasn't criticizing your first formula, just the > inaccuracy of your caveat. Oh, I see what you mean. It looks like I picked the wrong choice of words for the caveat. What I meant was that if there wasn't at least one numerical digit in A1, an incorrect result would be returned. What I probably should have said is that the formula will return 1 when A1 is empty and LEN(A1)+1 when there are no numerical digits in A1. > Appending the string of decimal numerals to A1 isn't necessarily a cheap > operation, and calling SEARCH repeatedly isn't cheap either. However, > they're cheaper than calling MID and ISNUMBER repeatedly. Also, INDIRECT is > volatile, so your latest formula would be recalculated all the time, whereas > your first formula would only be recalculated when A1 changes. Thanks Harlan, I appreciate the insight! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.