If a column is set up with error trapping so that it only contains integers,
why on earth would you want to check to see if it has integers again?
And remember, every function, or error check that is added takes up more
memory, and more calculating processing time by the computer. So if someone
has a column that will only contain whole numbers, why get redundant and chew
on more resources?
As far as calling names, I figured you would come to that, it is very like
you from all the posts of yours I read. Truly sad. Truly.
And my correction of you is basically the same you said to Biff. So
obviously I am not being condescending or accusatory, eh?
Not responding to the OP, then why respond at all? What was it that stuck in
your craw so much that Biff had made such an egregious error that you felt
the need to post? Now, if you were correcting an error made by a responder so
that the OP would know that an error exists, then I totally understand. But,
like you just said, you weren't responding to the OP, so why post? I know
why, because you are on your high horse, and you glean that someone may have
left some (as I pointed out, quite unnecessary) error trapping out. And while
we are at it, what happens, just curious, if one of those pesky alphabet
characters get in the way? hmmmm? You are so keen on error trapping, and
since you have expanded the fact that the cells can now contain decimal
numbers on top of integers (as the OP portrayed), well, what happens with
letters? Or, better, yet, what if is something like:
A2: =IF(B2=1,1,"")
Oh my goodness, then your formula breaks with old pesky #VALUE error. Now
what are you going to do? I mean heck, Biff missed that one too, didn't he?
*sigh*, you remind me of someone back in elementary school, but I digress.

--
** John C **
Please remember, if your question is answered, to check the YES box below.
It helps everyone.


"Harlan Grove" wrote:

John C <johnc@stateofdenial wrote...
I have read many of your posts, and you are constantly condescending. . . .

Biff (T. Valko) can defend himself. Besides, I didn't think I was
being condescending to him. I may have been pedantic and
overengineering, but not condescending. I wasn't responding to the OP.

As for you, you want to correct me. From your perspective, I'm
incorrigible. Are you too stupid to realize this?

. . . but get down off your high horse and treat other with respect. . . .

I do treat people with respect by default. Also definitely when they
deserve it. However, people like you who regret having grown too old
to be hall monitors and now look for other ways to make other people
do what you want them to do get what you get, at least not in the
threads where you're acting foolish.

Finally, without the condescension, to repeat:

Robustness is good. The formula

=SUMPRODUCT(--(MOD(A1:A10,2)0))

is OBJECTIVELY LESS ROBUST than

=SUMPRODUCT(--(MOD(A1:A10,2)=1))


Robustness isn't worthwhile?

The last formula will ALWAYS return the count of odd integers in
A1:A10 even when that range contains nonintegers and nonnumbers. Only
when there are error values in A1:A10 (or values greater than 2^28-1)
would it return something else (error values). Wouldn't that make it
more generally applicable and less subject to bugs in subsequent use?