Difference between revisions of "Talk:Calc/Drafts/Issue 33851"
(Those paste options are unrelated to the original issue.) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== Fill series == | == Fill series == | ||
| Line 38: | Line 36: | ||
Please, do change the wording. [user:kpalagin, 9:11 (CET) 5 January 2007] | Please, do change the wording. [user:kpalagin, 9:11 (CET) 5 January 2007] | ||
| − | = PASTE = | + | == PASTE == |
| − | == Paste Options == | + | === Paste Options === |
| − | === Paste as Value === | + | ==== Paste as Value ==== |
* exactly what it says | * exactly what it says | ||
| − | === Paste as Reference === | + | ==== Paste as Reference ==== |
* paste a reference to the original formula | * paste a reference to the original formula | ||
| Line 52: | Line 50: | ||
** this way, NO formula needs to be updated | ** this way, NO formula needs to be updated | ||
| − | === Paste as Original Content === | + | ==== Paste as Original Content ==== |
* needs some very intelligent processing of formulas | * needs some very intelligent processing of formulas | ||
| − | === Paste as Hard Link === | + | ==== Paste as Hard Link ==== |
* see issue 66817 for Hard Links (http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=66817) | * see issue 66817 for Hard Links (http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=66817) | ||
** Hard Links are NOT yet implemented in Calc | ** Hard Links are NOT yet implemented in Calc | ||
** are more powerful then simple references | ** are more powerful then simple references | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | All these ''PASTE'' options are unrelated to the original issue and only add more problems. I actually tend to remove that section completely to avoid confusion. Could we please focus on solving the original issue? Thanks. It also doesn't make sense to introduce an artificial '''= Talk =''' heading and promote one's own sections to H1 level, the page's title already serves well as it's header and always has the H1 attributes, sections should start with level 2. And it is also good habit to '''sign''' one's contributions to talk pages. --[[User:ErAck|erAck]] 17:36, 9 January 2007 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
Revision as of 16:36, 9 January 2007
Contents
Fill series
It looks fairly sensible to me so far.
On the fill series part (the last bit on the page at the time of writing.), I think option 2 is most logical. I think disabling series fill is a cop out! If you go with option 2 then you can still achieve the effect of option 1 through other means (fill the visible cells with a particular value, eg. "fred", then sort the sheet so all your freds are together in a contiguous range, then fill unfiltered, as normal) whereas if you went for option 1, you cannot really achieve the effect of option 2. --Peopleandplanet.org 18:39, 27 November 2006 (CET)
- Yet I don't know if it really makes sense to fill a series into a filtered view at all. What would it be good for? Any use case? --erAck 15:06, 29 November 2006 (CET)
For first, I appreciate the idea to discuss about this issue because is important that OOo will become as users "would like".
About the "fill series" I think that is better to permit the 2 option (ask to the user what he want).
So I think that in the fill series option one can activate the option to fill only visible cells, or to fill all cells. By default I think the best is to fill only visible cells (at least one do not loss data without notice). Actually OOo fill all cells even if they are not visible, and this can be a data loss (at least for me before to known this issue). Now use filter only when there isn't another way.
Bye
Ambrogio
--Delorea 22:00, 27 November 2006 (CET)
- I don't think we should have yet another radio button in the dialog for that. If a series should be filled into the entire area one can always do that in an unfiltered view. --erAck 15:06, 29 November 2006 (CET)
- Agree with ErAck. Hidden cells should 'never' be overwritten. I think there could be merit in asking the user how s/he wants the series to be calculated for the visible cells filling, between the options 1, 2. As I said above, I'd be happy with it just doing (2), but I concede that it's a rare thing to do anyway, and so presenting the user with the option might be less confusing and more useful. Peopleandplanet.org 15:16, 29 November 2006 (CET)
"filtered/non-filtered range" ?
Is it just the other way to describe "hidden/visible cells"?
Yes. If it's too confusing we can change wording. --erAck 13:35, 3 January 2007 (CET)
Please, do change the wording. [user:kpalagin, 9:11 (CET) 5 January 2007]
PASTE
Paste Options
Paste as Value
- exactly what it says
Paste as Reference
- paste a reference to the original formula
- e.g. (in new cell): '=$sheet$original cell'
- this way, NO formula needs to be updated
Paste as Original Content
- needs some very intelligent processing of formulas
Paste as Hard Link
- see issue 66817 for Hard Links (http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=66817)
- Hard Links are NOT yet implemented in Calc
- are more powerful then simple references
All these PASTE options are unrelated to the original issue and only add more problems. I actually tend to remove that section completely to avoid confusion. Could we please focus on solving the original issue? Thanks. It also doesn't make sense to introduce an artificial = Talk = heading and promote one's own sections to H1 level, the page's title already serves well as it's header and always has the H1 attributes, sections should start with level 2. And it is also good habit to sign one's contributions to talk pages. --erAck 17:36, 9 January 2007 (CET)
