You're skirting the issue Harlan!

I misspoke.
A1:A65536 *Doesn't* work.
A2:A65536 *OR* A1:A65535 *Both* work! ! !

You mentioned number of entries as the fubar of an A:A range.

All I said was it has to be more complex then that.
Come on ... 256 compared to 65,535!

Maybe Redmond has put all "entire column" references on the restricted list
because they're planning to spring that long awaited "Million" row XL on us
in the near future.<vbg
--
Regards,

RD

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please keep all correspondence within the NewsGroup, so all may benefit !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Harlan Grove" wrote in message
oups.com...
RagDyeR wrote...
It has to be more complex then just a "number of cells (entries)"
issue
Harlan, since A1:A65536 DOES work!
...

Not on my system. First, Excel *ALWAYS* replaces A1:A65536 with A:A.
Second, in a new worksheet, the following formula entered in B1

B1:
=SUMPRODUCT(--ISBLANK(A:A))

returns 0 rather than 65536. When I change the formula to

B1:
=SUMPRODUCT(--ISBLANK(A1:A65535))

it returns 65535. What results do you get on your system?

As for the formula in this thread, . . .

Ragdyer wrote...
...
And since ISBLANK accepts total references,

=LOOKUP(2,1/(1-ISBLANK(1:1)),1:1)
should work OK, right?
...

with A:A still all blank, I enter the following formula in B2.

B2:
=LOOKUP(2,1/(1-ISBLANK(A:A)),ROW(A:A))

It returns 1 to start with, not #N/A and not 0. If I change it to

B2:
=LOOKUP(2,1/(1-ISBLANK(A1:A65535)),ROW(A1:A65535))

it returns #N/A as expected (at least as I expect).

Reverting to the A:A formula, I then enter 9 in cell A11. The formula
*STILL* returns 1, not 11. What results do you get on your system?