Snit
On 4/4/17, 6:14 PM, in article avx89zb.f8c9a@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid>wrote:

owl
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>wrote:

Snit
On 4/4/17, 3:38 PM, in article ahbiz003.buyr@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid>wrote:

...

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
But you will not show the type work we have been doing with multiple tables all showing and being interrelated and updating automatically?

owl
I've already shown that.

Snit
Great... then point to the video where you created it by scratch (not running a script where you have preset a single task).

owl
I have asked you repeatedly why it is that you want a video of me typing in vim. Still no answer.

Snit
I have repeatedly answered.

And it is now clear you will NEVER show something similar to this, but using your tools:

<https://youtu.be/YfvQb8cxTBg>

Creating, from scratch and zero preparation (other than to have a program open and I can show that if you want!), multiple tables (some on the same sheet and others not) and where the cells of any one table can reference the cells of another... and just for fun an added chart. Whole thing (again, with no preparation or pre-set scripting or anything else prepared for the task) is about a minute.

Not shown, I admit, I shared it so you or anyone else could work with that spreadsheet (though I could have it also tied to specific users or passwords).

Now, of course, the tables I show there are just for demo purposes -- it is not like that has any real-world value other then educational, so I also shared this:

<https://youtu.be/VzVKlou6byU>

More complex tables with combined cells and more complex formulas (though still no major number crunching or the like), and I show the value of having the multiple tables and color coding of formula references and more. I would NOT expect you to recreate something like that just to show in COLA... it would take more time than I would reasonably expect you to do.

But with the first one, hey, it is a minute or two and -- BOOM -- done. Not like it is a big deal. Also, of course, you are under no obligation to do so, but given the time you have spent showing how you can have related tables and the like I think it is safe to say your tools simply do not allow for that type of work.

And, again, nothing wrong with that. Heck, there are MANY spreadsheet tasks where Numbers SUCKS. So, again, not putting you or sc down in any way... just good to see what each does well.

Hey, maybe you can show some of the spreadsheet tasks you think sc handles well... I am sure there are many you can think of where Numbers and even Excel would just suck at.

For that matter, did you ever even get a set of tables on a single sheet where you can update any table and have it flow through without flickering? If so would love to see how.

owl
You are aware that sc only presents one sheet at a time. It is necessary to use multiple sheets to have floating tables.

Snit
Yes... I know of that limitation of it.

owl
This has been shown to you multiple times already, and, aside from the Mack fluff, ever functional aspect has been addressed.

Snit
What do you mean by "fluff" -- can you be specific?

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
Very, very poorly, sure (as shown by the context I have returned... which you snipped). Really, you offered no REASONABLE solution.

owl
You don't get to change the specification after the fact.

Snit
LOL! Yeah, no assuming you have enough common sense to figure out people do not want to lose data. Repeatedly.

owl
Where is the "common sense" in renaming an open file?

Snit
Has already been discussed MANY times with me giving specific examples of when I have done so. Just off the top of my head:

* Downloaded a video and opened it... then realized it is was in the place I store it nor with the name (or label) I prefer. No reason to close it just to rename and move it (and add a label)!

* Opened files named "[Whatever] - New" and "[Whatever]" and, as I worked with them, realize I had related files with a different naming scheme... and saved in different folders. So renamed them to "[Whatever]" and "[Whatever] - OLD" and also moved them to their correct folders.

Why in situations such as that, as well as any other similar one, would you want to HAVE to close the file just to rename it or move it. That is a pretty big limitation!

But all of this is off the topic of your failure to have your solution take common sense into account.

Seriously, if you are claiming that concept goes over your head then you must be the world's worst scripter.

owl
I have also shown you a solution that does not lose data in other open files:

https://vid.me/XLwZ

Snit
Right... your solution for one program, not built in and never explained, and with the video with bizarre zooming (curious why you did that... does not really hurt it but just weird).

But it shows your thinking in terms of one program

and not the system... while showing something I did not expect you to so, sure, well done. Curious why you never shared it... I suspect you had different instances of LO or other weaknesses.

If nothing else you cannot just drag and drop from your file browser.

owl
It is your responsibility to detail everything you expect from a solution.

Snit
The assumption of basic common sense is included in everything I say.

owl
A written specification represents the totality of the requirments.

Snit
So you do not assume and take into consideration common sense with your work. Fair enough. That is just one other way we look at things differently. For me common sense and thinking in terms of risks is important and just comes naturally. For you that is not the case.