Hi John,

Adding a module containg a 100 line macro only added 20kb to a test file.

I would think that there is some misunderstanding; or else the footprint
issue is being advanced as a pretext and the true reason lies elsewhere.

It may be, for example, that there is a company directive against the use of
macros, or perhaps the person concerned has some fear of, or antipathy
towards macros.

Perhaps you could suggest, to the person concerned, comparing the size of
the workbook without macros to a renamed copy with the code.


---
Regards,
Norman



"JohnG" wrote in message
...
Any comments regarding how a 3 or 4 line macro would substantially
contribute to enlarging a spreadsheet workbook?

Through the help of this NG and sources, I was able to use a macro in a
spreadsheet that would hide columns of data that were blank.
This sheet was submitted to be incorporated in a workbook with
approximately 5 other tabs or worksheets.
The person responsible for doing this omitted this macro stating the
reason was they were trying to keep the footprint or size of the workbook
small.
Several people I demonstrated the macro to thought it would help them
immensely and they are soon to find out it is not there.

I honestly don't know enuf about modules, placement, and macro size to
understand if this reasoning is sound or not. The lines in the macro
amounted to less than 3 or 4, much less than this post alone. It could be
perhaps it conflicted with another worksheet, but I am only guessing. My
thoughts, I hope unwarranted, are this person simply didn't want to take
the time to incorporate it completely.
Comments?