Hi Friends,

In Excel 2000 I was struggling to trap the 'insert row' event, but had no
luck. When I got to work this morning, it seems that Excel 2003 does trap
that event with the Sheet 'Change' event.

I just want to confirm that this is true so I know why my vba programming
performs fine at work (Excel 2003), but fails at home (Excel 2000) - i.e.,
want to confirm this is a backward compatibility problem.

Thanks for your response ...

Certainly does.

--
HTH

Bob

(there's no email, no snail mail, but somewhere should be gmail in my addy)

"WCM" wrote in message
...
Hi Friends,

In Excel 2000 I was struggling to trap the 'insert row' event, but had no
luck. When I got to work this morning, it seems that Excel 2003 does trap
that event with the Sheet 'Change' event.

I just want to confirm that this is true so I know why my vba programming
performs fine at work (Excel 2003), but fails at home (Excel 2000) - i.e.,
want to confirm this is a backward compatibility problem.

Thanks for your response ...

Hi Bob,

Thank you. Now I just need to confirm that all recipients are on 2003 or
better so the vba will work.

Code is behind a sheet that contains one pivot table - the pivot table has
conditional formatting on one percent column, so I cannot allow the user to
move that column. Reversing everything the user does to change the shape of
the pivot table is the simplest way to accomplish that. Only thing missing in
2000 was a trap for a row insert event - but great to have it in 2003!

Thanks again ...

bill

"Bob Phillips" wrote:

Certainly does.

--
HTH

Bob

(there's no email, no snail mail, but somewhere should be gmail in my addy)

"WCM" wrote in message
...
Hi Friends,

In Excel 2000 I was struggling to trap the 'insert row' event, but had no
luck. When I got to work this morning, it seems that Excel 2003 does trap
that event with the Sheet 'Change' event.

I just want to confirm that this is true so I know why my vba programming
performs fine at work (Excel 2003), but fails at home (Excel 2000) - i.e.,
want to confirm this is a backward compatibility problem.

Thanks for your response ...