Or that Epinn seemed not to like that =roundup() rounds up--no matter how small
the initial value!



JLatham wrote:

Perhaps it isn't so much that ROUNDUP() is so interesting, but that Dave and
I were so incredibly bored at the time that any diversion was a welcome
event? <g

"Epinn" wrote:

Thanks for responding.

I didn't think of =ROUNDUP(1.99999,-2), =ROUNUP(1.99999,-3) etc. Interesting.

ROUND is so different. Both =ROUND(1.9999,-1) and =ROUND(1.99999,-2) give me 0. It's easier for me to accept these results.

=ROUNDUP(22,-1) yields 30 while =ROUND(22,-1) yields 20 and =ROUND(25,-1) yields 30.

If you wonder if I have a question, I say probably not. I just feel like making a comment as I find all this confusing. I guess most offices don't need this.

Thank you for reading. Comments on ROUND and ROUNDUP welcome. I hope the forum "police" not around. ;)

Epinn

"Epinn" wrote in message ...
I read Help before I post.

=ROUNDUP(11.99999,-1) yields 20

I can understand this.

=ROUNDUP(1.99999,-1) yields 10

I have a hard time accepting this regardless of whether this is logical. I prefer an error returned. Maybe for a case like this, we need to do a logical test first for the number of decimal places available to the left of the decimal point? Any comments?

Can someone give me a good example where we will use -1 with ROUNDUP?

Thanks.

Epinn










--

Dave Peterson