Why can't Excel add numbers in a cell without a leading '=' or '+'. For
example, 3+2 returns a cell with "3+2" instead of "5".

Transplanted Buckeye wrote...
Why can't Excel add numbers in a cell without a leading '=' or '+'.
For
example, 3+2 returns a cell with "3+2" instead of "5".

Turn on Transition Formula Entry, Tools Options, select the
Transition tab in the Options dialog, check the entry for Transition
formula entry, click OK.

Be warned - this will make date entries much more difficult because
1-12-2005 and 1/12/2005 will also be treated as formulas, returning
-2016 and 4.15628E-05, respectively.

If you mean 'Why can't Excel just *add* numbers, but not subtract,
multiply or divide them without a leading = or +?', then I suppose it's
because Excel's developers believe consistency in this instance is more
important than convenience only for those who want to add.

Because = tells excel to execute the formula as opposed to display a text
string,
if you want a calculator there are several available.
Excel may have major issues ,this is certainly not one of them


Regards,

Peo Sjoblom


"Transplanted Buckeye" wrote:

Why can't Excel add numbers in a cell without a leading '=' or '+'. For
example, 3+2 returns a cell with "3+2" instead of "5".

Will the dates display as numbers even if the cells have been formatted as
dates? As I migrate, there are two things I prefer Lotus 1-2-3 over Excel
are that Lotus can better detect numbers and you can edit between multiple
pastes without having to re-select what you want to paste, with the latter
being the more cumbersome.

Thanks for the help. I will give it a try.

" wrote:

Transplanted Buckeye wrote...
Why can't Excel add numbers in a cell without a leading '=' or '+'.
For
example, 3+2 returns a cell with "3+2" instead of "5".

Turn on Transition Formula Entry, Tools Options, select the
Transition tab in the Options dialog, check the entry for Transition
formula entry, click OK.

Be warned - this will make date entries much more difficult because
1-12-2005 and 1/12/2005 will also be treated as formulas, returning
-2016 and 4.15628E-05, respectively.

If you mean 'Why can't Excel just *add* numbers, but not subtract,
multiply or divide them without a leading = or +?', then I suppose it's
because Excel's developers believe consistency in this instance is more
important than convenience only for those who want to add.

No, the numbers will be displayed as dates but they will calculate so today's
date will be displayed as 01/00/00 and you cannot enter a time like 09:00
without getting an error

Regards,

Peo Sjoblom

"Transplanted Buckeye" wrote:

Will the dates display as numbers even if the cells have been formatted as
dates? As I migrate, there are two things I prefer Lotus 1-2-3 over Excel
are that Lotus can better detect numbers and you can edit between multiple
pastes without having to re-select what you want to paste, with the latter
being the more cumbersome.

Thanks for the help. I will give it a try.

" wrote:

Transplanted Buckeye wrote...
Why can't Excel add numbers in a cell without a leading '=' or '+'.
For
example, 3+2 returns a cell with "3+2" instead of "5".

Turn on Transition Formula Entry, Tools Options, select the
Transition tab in the Options dialog, check the entry for Transition
formula entry, click OK.

Be warned - this will make date entries much more difficult because
1-12-2005 and 1/12/2005 will also be treated as formulas, returning
-2016 and 4.15628E-05, respectively.

If you mean 'Why can't Excel just *add* numbers, but not subtract,
multiply or divide them without a leading = or +?', then I suppose it's
because Excel's developers believe consistency in this instance is more
important than convenience only for those who want to add.

Transplanted Buckeye wrote...
Will the dates display as numbers even if the cells have been
formatted as
dates? As I migrate, there are two things I prefer Lotus 1-2-3 over
Excel
are that Lotus can better detect numbers and you can edit between
multiple
pastes without having to re-select what you want to paste, with the
latter
being the more cumbersome.
....

Formatting has no impact on the interpretation of entries, whether or
not you use transition formula evaluation. Well, to be accurate, the
Text numeric format does affect how entries are interpreted, but it's
the only one. If you format with any other number format, 1/12/2005
will be displayed in that format, but it'll be evaluated as
=(1/12)/2005. FWLIW, this is one of the reasons I always used Label
format for date entry cells in 123, and always referenced such cells
inside @DATEVALUE.

If you think these are annoying, just wait till you try Excel's DSUM,
DCOUNT, etc. and try doing anything 3-D.

"Peo Sjoblom" wrote...
Because = tells excel to execute the formula as opposed to display a text
string, if you want a calculator there are several available.
....

The initial = is only needed because Excel, unlike 123-like spreadsheets,
didn't use @ as prefix for all built-in functions (and in later 32-bit
versions, custom functions). 123's formula syntax is as well-defined as
Excel's, and it functioned as the OP seems to prefer (including, in later
versions, treating formulas which could be interpreted as dates as dates in
cells with Automatic and General number formats [and as a developer, I hated
123's Automatic format with a passion]).

Since Microsoft introduced single quotes as label prefix character in either
XL4 or XL5, Excel could function as the OP seems to prefer. I'll stick by my
previous comment that it doesn't because Excel's developers or designers
rate consistency above convenience.