Mail merge using calculation field in an IF field

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Ed - 06 Jun 2007 17:20 GMT

Hello All,

I'm testing with Word 2003 and when I perform a mail merge that uses a
calculation field inside an IF field, the calculation field seems to become
unlinked in the merged document.

That is, if I have something like this in my mail merge main document ...

{ = 2+3 }

{ IF { MERGEFIELD "MyName" } = "Ed" "{ = 2+3 }" "" }

... after the merge the first calculation is still a field but the one in
the IF field is just the value 5. If I select it, the right-click menu
doesn't have the field options and Alt+F9 leaves it as 5.

Is this just Word's "normal" behaviour or am I missing something?

Regards.

Ed

Reply to this Message

Graham Mayor - 07 Jun 2007 06:45 GMT

This is normal. You have merged the information to create a result.

Signature

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web site www.gmayor.com
Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

> Hello All,
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Ed

Reply to this Message

Ed - 08 Jun 2007 11:49 GMT

Hi Graham,

Thanks for the confirmation.

Regards.

Ed

> This is normal. You have merged the information to create a result.
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> >
> > Ed

Reply to this Message

Peter Jamieson - 07 Jun 2007 07:33 GMT

It's normal. I've never sat down and worked out exactly when Word completely
resolves the result and when it leaves the field in the document, but I
suspect the rules are fairly straightforward. Sometimes it is important to
know if, for example, you need to be able to refresh included items
(INCLUDETEXT/INCLUDEPICTURE) or if you need a field in a header/footer that
evaluates differently on each page in the result document.

Peter Jamieson

> Hello All,
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Ed

Reply to this Message

Ed - 08 Jun 2007 11:48 GMT

Hi Peter,

It's a bit of a pity that Word behaves like this. Where the original query
came from is that one of our clients was trying to create a document to be
used for several work types and they had three IF fields which test the work
type and conditionally display table A, table B or table C. Each of the
tables contains calculations based on data pulled into merge fields from a
database. The merge is performed by automation. Occasionally the database
data that contributes to the calculations is incorrect and needs to be
tweaked in the document post-merge, but since the calculation is no longer a
field it doesn't change to reflect the altered data.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Regards.

Ed

> It's normal. I've never sat down and worked out exactly when Word completely
> resolves the result and when it leaves the field in the document, but I
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> >
> > Ed

Reply to this Message

Peter Jamieson - 08 Jun 2007 12:05 GMT

Hi Ed,

Yes, the "field language" can be frustrating!

You can do things like

{ ={ IF { MERGEFIELD "MyName" } = "Ed" "2+3" "0" } \## }

to retain the calculation. Not sure that would cope with allyour
requirements.

Peter Jamieson

> Hi Peter,
>
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>> >
>> > Ed

Reply to this Message

Ed - 08 Jun 2007 16:27 GMT

Hi Peter,

Neat idea. It works for my simplified test case but I don't think I can
apply it in my real-word case because what the IF field contains in the
real-world case is a whole table (including calculations) rather than just a
calculation.

But thanks for the suggestion. Getting Word to "construct" the field on the
fly might prove useful in some other situation.

We have got at least a couple of ways we can work around the issue - use
three work type specific documents rather than one general one. (There isn't
much in the document other than the tables so this might even be a benefit,
giving flexibility.) Or run a macro after the merge to create the formula
fields. (The software used to automate the merge can automatically run a
macro.)

Thanks for your help.

Regards.

Ed

> Hi Ed,
>
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
> >> >
> >> > Ed

Reply to this Message

Peter Jamieson - 11 Jun 2007 10:55 GMT

Yes, in theory you could also INCLUDETEXT the table, and the INCLUDETEXT
will probably be preserved, but the real probelm is that whatever you do,
key information is likely to be lost in such a way that "pre-merge" field
behaviour will differ from "post-merge" field behaviour. For example, if the
table references MERGEFIELD or bookmarks, but postmerge their names and
values are gone.

Peter Jamieson

> Hi Peter,
>
[quoted text clipped - 103 lines]
>> >> >
>> >> > Ed

Reply to this Message

Ed - 11 Jun 2007 13:24 GMT

Hi Peter,

I had tried INCLUDETEXT and what had happened was that both the formula
fields in the table and the INCLUDETEXT field itself became unlinked (if the
INCLUDETEXT field was inside an IF field, but not if it wasn't). I tried a
DATE field inside an IF field and this was unlinked as well.

I tried merging the original document using Word 97 and this preserved the
formula fields. So I tried a DATE field inside an IF field in Word 97 and got
inconsistent results! E.g. if my field was { IF 1 = 1 "{ DATE }" "" } the
field was unlinked, but if my field was
{ IF 1 = 1 "
{ DATE }" "" } (with the DATE field on the second line) the DATE field
remained a field.

I couldn't test with Word 2000 but when I tried the original merge with Word
2002 I got the same result as with 2003 - the formula fields were unlinked.
Got this with 2007 as well.

I'm guessing that the re-write of the merge in 2002 changed how IF fields
are handled and (I haven't done enough testing to be sure about this) it
looks like maybe any field inside an IF field in the later versions gets
unlinked.

>but the real probelm is that whatever you do, key information is likely to be lost in >such a way that "pre-merge" field behaviour will differ from "post-merge" field behaviour.

I think you are not wrong.

Regards.

Ed

> Yes, in theory you could also INCLUDETEXT the table, and the INCLUDETEXT
> will probably be preserved, but the real probelm is that whatever you do,
[quoted text clipped - 112 lines]
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ed

Reply to this Message