Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.programming
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
i use a for each cell in range("L3:L33") statement. the previous code loads
about 40 workbooks, then cycles through 12 sheets using the for each statement. it searches for an R or an A, can be either throughout the L3:L33 range. most cells are blank, though. if it finds an R or A, it has to check offset(0,1) for another value. i need to keep track of the counts of each of the 3. i have the code working fine, so i don't really need code, just giving some background on what i am doing. probably takes less than 2 seconds a workbook. but i was wondering: would there be a faster way instead of for each cell? would it be any faster testing for a blank cell and skipping it and going to the next cell. -- Gary |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
A couple of questions | Excel Discussion (Misc queries) | |||
Couple of Questions | Excel Discussion (Misc queries) | |||
Couple more questions... | New Users to Excel | |||
A couple of questions | Excel Programming | |||
A couple of questions | Excel Programming |