In Excel 97 it did for me but I may not have tested it thoroughly enough.
In any event, it appears an obfuscation and redundant.

In Excel 2000, it is legitimate, but totally unnecessary when ClientInfo by
itself works fine. The question is what your definition of clientinfo is
and what you are trying to achieve with this notation. This uses the union
operator to build a union of cells from A1 to ClientInfo. If that is what
you intended to achieve, I suppose it is legitimate, but it seems the long
way around the block to me and your explanation did not show that to be your
intent or why you would need it. In fact your definition of ClientInfo
already started in A1 on Sheet1, so there is no reason to create a redundant
union. Except for the "unique" notation you used, the remainder of your
post repeated what already had been posted, so I am not sure what your
intent was.

--
Regards,
Tom Ogilvy





"unplugs " wrote in message
...
ClientInfo is defined in the name range, and insert:
sheet1!A1:ClientInfo
into the rowsource in the properties for listbox. For me, this method
works great...is it really produces inproper property assignment?


---
Message posted from http://www.ExcelForum.com/