owl
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>wrote:

Snit
On 4/3/17, 9:45 PM, in article zb3ugoa00.aulu@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid>wrote:

...

owl
You haven't shown any benefit to that.

Snit
Sure I have... it allows you to group logically separate concepts into separate tables on the same sheet, it allows you to have data where columns do not line up, etc. I focused on this in the video on the magic spell calculation.

owl
And I do all of that using separate windows, possibly embedded into a single window.

Snit
So show it... including the creation process. THAT will show the benefits you are missing... the ease of use.

owl
Here's a creation process for you:

https://vid.me/pG0C

zero to 52000 tables in 2.57 seconds. Each with locked labels and formulas. Instantaneous jump to any table.

Snit
With YOUR suggestion, with an open source tool, we saw the hazard: an unknowing person could have lost data. Twice.

owl
We saw you move the goalposts beyond the specifications.

Snit
Yeah, I merely noted I wanted an open file to be renamed

owl
And that specification was met.

Snit
, I did not note I wanted this done in a way that would not lose data in that file and others. This, of course, would be simply assumed by any reasonable person... but you did not. It is quite telling as to how you see technology... almost as if you want to think like a computer and not assume basic knowledge and only go with what the "programmer" tells you. I mean, really, the concept that the task should NOT lead to repeated data loss in multiple files is NOT a specification that should have to be stated. It would be insane to try to list EVERY single simple assumption like that.