MS Office Forum / Word / Mailmerge and Fax / April 2004
Odd Field Behavior
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Greg Maxey - 14 Apr 2004 19:37 GMT This could be a printer issue or a Word2003 issue.
I have an nested IF and formula field to evaluate the input of two table cells. If the forumla returns !Zero Divide or a value less < 2, the field result is displayed with the font formatted as red. Results 2 or greater are displayed with black font. The code is provided below. Note that the [ ] are added to signify the start and stop of the part of the code formatted with a red font.
{ IF { = (a3/c3/) } < “2.00”[{ IF { =(a3/c3) } = “!Zero Divide””No GPA or Invalid” { =(a3/c3) \# 0.000}}]{ = (a3/c3) \# 0.000 }}
The field performs and displays on the screen both at work (Word 2000) and at home (Word 2003). Here is the odd part, if I print at home or toggle to print preview, the results to the field simply disappears!! When I close print preview the display is still gone. If I look at the UnDo icon there are three instances of Update Fields displayed. If I CTRL+Z three times the display returns. It is weird. At work with Word 2000 everything displays, and prints normally. The only difference I see is toggleing print preview in Word 2000 results in only 2 Update Fields intances.
I used the macro utility at home and ran the Word Update Fields command three times. There was no effect on the display.
I am thinking this might have something to do with the Word 2003 Print command. Was wondering if anybody out there has experienced this issue and has found a solution.
macropod - 15 Apr 2004 09:08 GMT Hi Greg,
I don't see any particular reason for your field's misbehaviour, unless it's something to do with the superfluous '/' following the first 'a3/c3' expression.
Also, wouldn't it be easier to code your field thus: {IF{=c3}= 0 "No GPA or Invalid" {IF{=a3/c3}< 2 {=a3/c3 \# 0.000} {=a3/c3 \# 0.000}}} where the string "No GPA or Invalid" and the first ' {=a3/c3 \# 0.000}' are both formatted in red? Testing for the divisor=0 is simpler than testing for the division's result = "!Zero Divide", and you don't need to put the 'a3/c3' expressions in brackets.
Cheers PS: It took longer to figure out what all the '“' strings in your post were about than to recode the formula!!
This could be a printer issue or a Word2003 issue.
I have an nested IF and formula field to evaluate the input of two table cells. If the forumla returns !Zero Divide or a value less < 2, the field result is displayed with the font formatted as red. Results 2 or greater are displayed with black font. The code is provided below. Note that the [ ] are added to signify the start and stop of the part of the code formatted with a red font.
{ IF { = (a3/c3/) } < “2.00”[{ IF { =(a3/c3) } = “!Zero Divide””No GPA or Invalid” { =(a3/c3) \# 0.000}}]{ = (a3/c3) \# 0.000 }}
The field performs and displays on the screen both at work (Word 2000) and at home (Word 2003). Here is the odd part, if I print at home or toggle to print preview, the results to the field simply disappears!! When I close print preview the display is still gone. If I look at the UnDo icon there are three instances of Update Fields displayed. If I CTRL+Z three times the display returns. It is weird. At work with Word 2000 everything displays, and prints normally. The only difference I see is toggleing print preview in Word 2000 results in only 2 Update Fields intances.
I used the macro utility at home and ran the Word Update Fields command three times. There was no effect on the display.
I am thinking this might have something to do with the Word 2003 Print command. Was wondering if anybody out there has experienced this issue and has found a solution.
Greg Maxey - 15 Apr 2004 11:14 GMT Macropod,
The superfluous "/" was a typo in converting from code to text. Yes your method would be easier. The beast grew from a simple a3/c3 :-). Thanks for the reminder on the brackets. The newsgroup posting replaced the speach marks with the smattering of symbols :-(.
Either way it doesn't seem to make a difference. Peter Jamieson might be on to it.
Thanks
 Signature Greg Maxey A peer in "peer to peer" support Rockledge, FL To e-mail, edit out the "w...spam" in gmaxey@whamspammvps.org
> Hi Greg, > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 16/03/2004 Peter Jamieson - 15 Apr 2004 09:56 GMT I'm not sure what the problem is but experiments here (also Word 2000/Word 2003, but just doing the Print Previews) suggest that if your formula is within a table (where the a3 and c3 refer to table cells) but you also have, e.g.
{ set a3 100 }{ set c3 0 }{ =({ a3 }/{ c3 }) }
outside the table, then in Word 2003 the formula previews as blank wherever you put it. Without the { =({ a3 }/{ c3 }) } the formula previews OK, although you need to refresh the field results first. In Word 2000 it always works.
Now that experiment obviously does not pin down precisely what causes the problem but it suggests to me that Word 2003 might be getting more confused between table cell references and bookmark names than Word 2000 does.
I suppose the colour issue could be related to
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=835714
- I think there is also a recent hotfix related to this issue. Since hotfixing seems to be more frequent it has become a bit harder to keep track of this stuff!
 Signature Peter Jamieson - Word MVP Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org/
This could be a printer issue or a Word2003 issue.
I have an nested IF and formula field to evaluate the input of two table cells. If the forumla returns !Zero Divide or a value less < 2, the field result is displayed with the font formatted as red. Results 2 or greater are displayed with black font. The code is provided below. Note that the [ ] are added to signify the start and stop of the part of the code formatted with a red font.
{ IF { = (a3/c3/) } < “2.00”[{ IF { =(a3/c3) } = “!Zero Divide””No GPA or Invalid” { =(a3/c3) \# 0.000}}]{ = (a3/c3) \# 0.000 }}
The field performs and displays on the screen both at work (Word 2000) and at home (Word 2003). Here is the odd part, if I print at home or toggle to print preview, the results to the field simply disappears!! When I close print preview the display is still gone. If I look at the UnDo icon there are three instances of Update Fields displayed. If I CTRL+Z three times the display returns. It is weird. At work with Word 2000 everything displays, and prints normally. The only difference I see is toggleing print preview in Word 2000 results in only 2 Update Fields intances.
I used the macro utility at home and ran the Word Update Fields command three times. There was no effect on the display.
I am thinking this might have something to do with the Word 2003 Print command. Was wondering if anybody out there has experienced this issue and has found a solution.
Greg Maxey - 15 Apr 2004 12:23 GMT Peter,
Sounds like you are on to something, but color doesn't seem to make any difference. I modified the forumla as suggested by macropod. It is four dot on in Word2000 but in Word2003 the field results go blank on print or print preview with or with color applied to parts of the field code. The only obvious differenc I can find between Word2000 and Word2003 is Word2000 executes Fields Update twice when I toggle to print preview and Word2003 executes this command three times. The fields are not redisplayed in the document until after the third CTRL+Z.
This is not good. How do you suppose would be best to relay this to the MS folks?
>-----Original Message----- >I'm not sure what the problem is but experiments here (also Word 2000/Word [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > >. Cindy M -WordMVP- - 15 Apr 2004 16:19 GMT Hi Peter/Greg,
I vaguely recall seeing a problem similar to this one posted in the German groups... a LONG time back (maybe a year or more). Can't recall any details or the resolution BUT
1. There is definitely a potential conflict within a table if one uses a bookmark name that could also be interpreted as a cell reference. Doug Robbins hit on this one *years* ago.
2. This will be exacerbated by the fact that REF is being omitted from the Ref fields. Implicit REF fields are *DANGEROUS*!! (Did I emphasize that enough?) They can cause all kinds of unexpected results; they should only be used when you know you want to use them for a particular reason (like in mail merge with a table data source, in order to bring across font formatting).
So, Greg: 1. Change the bookmark names, and 2. put REF in the field codes and see if that changes something.
> I'm not sure what the problem is but experiments here (also Word 2000/Word > 2003, but just doing the Print Previews) suggest that if your formula is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > although you need to refresh the field results first. In Word 2000 it always > works. Cindy Meister INTER-Solutions, Switzerland http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister (last update Sep 30 2003) http://www.word.mvps.org
This reply is posted in the Newsgroup; please post any follow question or reply in the newsgroup and not by e-mail :-)
Greg Maxey - 15 Apr 2004 17:09 GMT Cindy,
I am not using any bookmarks in my formula. I am using only table cell references. Still I will check to see if changing (e.g., {= a3/c3}) as table cell references to {= ({REF a3bm}/{REF c3bm})} where a3bm and c3bm are bookmark names for the data bookmarked in cells a3 and c3.
It works either way here on a Word2000 machine and I will try it at home later with Word2003.
Thanks for the suggestions.
>-----Original Message----- >Hi Peter/Greg, [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >. Cindy M -WordMVP- - 15 Apr 2004 18:02 GMT Hi Greg,
> I am not using any bookmarks in my formula. Ah, sorry! I was looking at Peter's posting and thinking he'd picked up the SET fields from your original...
Cindy
Greg Maxey - 16 Apr 2004 00:54 GMT Cindy,
Looks like your memory nailed it. I went through and bookmarked cells a3, b3, c3, d3, a20, b20, c20, and d20 as a2bm, b3bm etc, etc.
I then went in my eight formula fields and replaced every table reference e.g., { =c3}, {=a3/c3} with and equivalent REF field i.e., { REF c3bm }, { =({ REF a3bm}/{ REF c3bm})} and viola it is now working as expected.
This is a real hair ball however and certainly doesn't qualify as an improvement.
Thanks for offer your suggestions.
 Signature Greg Maxey A peer in "peer to peer" support Rockledge, FL To e-mail, edit out the "w...spam" in gmaxey@whamspammvps.org
Cindy M -WordMVP- wrote:
> Hi Peter/Greg, > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > This reply is posted in the Newsgroup; please post any follow > question or reply in the newsgroup and not by e-mail :-) Cindy M -WordMVP- - 16 Apr 2004 10:53 GMT Hi Greg,
> Looks like your memory nailed it. I went through and bookmarked cells a3, > b3, c3, d3, a20, b20, c20, and d20 as a2bm, b3bm etc, etc. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > This is a real hair ball however and certainly doesn't qualify as an > improvement. Interesting, and I agree it's certainly not an improvement. Would you still have a copy of the original document, with the problem? I'd like to take a look at it, and if it misbehaves on my installation, as well, forward it to the Word team...
Cindy Meister INTER-Solutions, Switzerland http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister (last update Sep 30 2003) http://www.word.mvps.org
This reply is posted in the Newsgroup; please post any follow question or reply in the newsgroup and not by e-mail :-)
|
|
|