Hi Bruno,
Tunnelling notation is some micro-seconds
faster then square braket notation? Is it a problem?
That depends on the number of evaluation calls made by the programme. In
trivial code, I accept that the timing difference would be imperceptible.
but I'm quite sure square braket notation is not allowed
in Excel 97/2000.
May be my memory fails on this point; do you have any
chance to check it?
The square bracket notation is certainly available in both xl97 and xl2000.
In respect of xl97, your own quote
The writer says the article applies to Microsoft Excel 97 Standard Edition
indicates that. As regards, xl2k, I ran your square bracket code on an xl2k
system without problem.
Having acquired just a little experience in using a product
such as Excel, the strait way to dive deeper and deeper is
your own experimentation rather than studying theoretical
srticles, even thogh they are written by MS.
My opinion, of course.
Experimentation and a healthy degree of cynicism are, in my opinion,
estimable virtues. Devise, therefore, some test code which makes intensive
use of square bracket evaluation calls; run this code, and analogous code
without such evaluation calls, with a timer and compare the results.
Finally, my comments were not made in any spirit of criticism, but uniquely
in reponse to an observation that your invariable penchant is for the square
bravket notational style.
---
Regards,
Norman
"Bruno Campanini" wrote in message
...
"Norman Jones" wrote in message
...
Hallo Norman,
I found of interest the article you mentioned mainly for the
fact I knew it is also possible to use [Sheet!A1:A10] instead of the
normal tunneling notation.
I know I can't use variables in square braket notation, but this
is not a problem.
Efficiency:
Tunnelling notation is some micro-seconds
faster then square braket notation? Is it a problem?
Further:
The writer says the article applies to
Microsoft Excel 97 Standard Edition.
Well, I don't actually have any Excel 97/2000 installed,
but I'm quite sure square braket notation is not allowed
in Excel 97/2000.
May be my memory fails on this point; do you have any
chance to check it?
Summarizing:
Having acquired just a little experience in using a product
such as Excel, the strait way to dive deeper and deeper is
your own experimentation rather than studying theoretical
srticles, even thogh they are written by MS.
My opinion, of course.
Btw Norman, thanks very much for info.
Bruno
Hi Bruno,
I know from your posts, especially elsewhere, that you are an avid
proponent of abbreviation, especially the square bracket syntax.
If you are not aware, you may find the following MS Knowledge Base
article of interest:
'Square Bracket Notation Is Less Efficient Than Tunneling'
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;104502
---
Regards,
Norman
"Bruno Campanini" wrote in message
...
"mike allen" wrote in message
...
i need to clarify. the top code in original message does NOT work,
while the bottom code does work. i have found a way to get the top to
work, but not sure why it works. i did the following to get the one
line code to work:
Sheets("sheet1").Range(Cells(1, 1), Cells(3, 3)) =
Range(Sheets("sheet2").Cells(1, 1), Sheets("sheet2").Cells(3, 3)).Value
while the following does not work:
Sheets("sheet1").Range(Cells(1, 1), Cells(3, 3)) =
Sheets("sheet2").Range(Cells(1, 1), Cells(3, 3)).Value
Try this:
Sheets("Sheet6").[N24:P26] = Sheets("Sheet2").[H238:J240].Value
or this:
Sheets("Sheet6").Range("N24:P26") =
Sheets("Sheet2").Range("H238:J240").Value
They both work with Excel 2003
Bruno