Any comments regarding how a 3 or 4 line macro would substantially
contribute to enlarging a spreadsheet workbook?

Through the help of this NG and sources, I was able to use a macro in a
spreadsheet that would hide columns of data that were blank.
This sheet was submitted to be incorporated in a workbook with approximately
5 other tabs or worksheets.
The person responsible for doing this omitted this macro stating the reason
was they were trying to keep the footprint or size of the workbook small.
Several people I demonstrated the macro to thought it would help them
immensely and they are soon to find out it is not there.

I honestly don't know enuf about modules, placement, and macro size to
understand if this reasoning is sound or not. The lines in the macro
amounted to less than 3 or 4, much less than this post alone. It could be
perhaps it conflicted with another worksheet, but I am only guessing. My
thoughts, I hope unwarranted, are this person simply didn't want to take the
time to incorporate it completely.
Comments?

Hi John,

Adding a module containg a 100 line macro only added 20kb to a test file.

I would think that there is some misunderstanding; or else the footprint
issue is being advanced as a pretext and the true reason lies elsewhere.

It may be, for example, that there is a company directive against the use of
macros, or perhaps the person concerned has some fear of, or antipathy
towards macros.

Perhaps you could suggest, to the person concerned, comparing the size of
the workbook without macros to a renamed copy with the code.


---
Regards,
Norman



"JohnG" wrote in message
...
Any comments regarding how a 3 or 4 line macro would substantially
contribute to enlarging a spreadsheet workbook?

Through the help of this NG and sources, I was able to use a macro in a
spreadsheet that would hide columns of data that were blank.
This sheet was submitted to be incorporated in a workbook with
approximately 5 other tabs or worksheets.
The person responsible for doing this omitted this macro stating the
reason was they were trying to keep the footprint or size of the workbook
small.
Several people I demonstrated the macro to thought it would help them
immensely and they are soon to find out it is not there.

I honestly don't know enuf about modules, placement, and macro size to
understand if this reasoning is sound or not. The lines in the macro
amounted to less than 3 or 4, much less than this post alone. It could be
perhaps it conflicted with another worksheet, but I am only guessing. My
thoughts, I hope unwarranted, are this person simply didn't want to take
the time to incorporate it completely.
Comments?

John,
From my rudimentary test, such a macro will add a few K to the file size.
There are various "Code Cleaner" add-ins available that will keep VBA size
to a minimum, but if this person is seriously concerned over an additional
few K for something that will save all the users performing a mundane,
repetitive task manually, then he does not fully grasp the benefit of using
Excel as a tool.

NickHK

"JohnG" wrote in message
...
Any comments regarding how a 3 or 4 line macro would substantially
contribute to enlarging a spreadsheet workbook?

Through the help of this NG and sources, I was able to use a macro in a
spreadsheet that would hide columns of data that were blank.
This sheet was submitted to be incorporated in a workbook with
approximately
5 other tabs or worksheets.
The person responsible for doing this omitted this macro stating the
reason
was they were trying to keep the footprint or size of the workbook small.
Several people I demonstrated the macro to thought it would help them
immensely and they are soon to find out it is not there.

I honestly don't know enuf about modules, placement, and macro size to
understand if this reasoning is sound or not. The lines in the macro
amounted to less than 3 or 4, much less than this post alone. It could be
perhaps it conflicted with another worksheet, but I am only guessing. My
thoughts, I hope unwarranted, are this person simply didn't want to take
the
time to incorporate it completely.
Comments?

As others have said a few lines of code should not add insignificantly to
file size.

I expect your size increment is due to what your macro does. Hiding columns
wouldn't add that much unless done in several sheets. But hiding 1000's of
rows can increase size considerably. Try replicating manually what your code
does but in a file with no code. First save a workbook that's never had rows
or cols hidden. Compare the difference after doing stuff.

To hide columns to the right and rows below, look at scroll area.

Regards,
Peter T

"JohnG" wrote in message
...
Any comments regarding how a 3 or 4 line macro would substantially
contribute to enlarging a spreadsheet workbook?

Through the help of this NG and sources, I was able to use a macro in a
spreadsheet that would hide columns of data that were blank.
This sheet was submitted to be incorporated in a workbook with
approximately
5 other tabs or worksheets.
The person responsible for doing this omitted this macro stating the
reason
was they were trying to keep the footprint or size of the workbook small.
Several people I demonstrated the macro to thought it would help them
immensely and they are soon to find out it is not there.

I honestly don't know enuf about modules, placement, and macro size to
understand if this reasoning is sound or not. The lines in the macro
amounted to less than 3 or 4, much less than this post alone. It could be
perhaps it conflicted with another worksheet, but I am only guessing. My
thoughts, I hope unwarranted, are this person simply didn't want to take
the
time to incorporate it completely.
Comments?