Well guys I am now totally confused and need a week to unravel what you have
all suggested. I am sure I will plump with one eventually and thank you so
much for your interest and time. This is in fact not for me but for a
colleague and will leave him to decide!
Thakns
Debbie

"Peo Sjoblom" wrote:

It is simpler to use ROWS than using ROW the way you do since you need two
row functions, one to offset any possible inserted rows on top thus you need
to use a cell in the same row as the formula to "anchor" it. I always use it
the same way as in Harlan's example and I find it much easier to use and as
he showed it also adapts to row deletion so then we can also say it is
better than using ROW


--
Regards,

Peo Sjoblom


"Bernie Deitrick" <deitbe @ consumer dot org wrote in message
...
Phippsy,

As you have found, using the ROWS function is not better than using the
ROW function, since inserting a new row 1 will mess up the ROWS formula,
but not the one ROW()-ROW($a$5) etc that I posted.

HTH,
Bernie
MS Excel MVP


"Phippsy" wrote in message
...
The last one I understand having looked what the ROWS function does
however
why is this better than using the ROW() function?
Thanks

"Harlan Grove" wrote:

"T. Valko" wrote...
Another one:

=ROWS($1:1)*$A$4
....

Better to start with a single cell, e.g., if the formula were entered
in cell X99,

X99:
=ROWS(X$99:X99)*$A$4

since any entries/changes anywhere in row 1 would cause your formula
to recalc.