That seems to work for the most part, but now I'm experiencing a strange difference when evaluating. If I use a formula like
#+TBLFM:@2$3..@23$3=if($2!=0,12*$2,$3);%.2f::@24$2=vsum(@I..@II);%.2f::@24$3=vsum(@I..@II);%.2f The column gets evaluated first, then the sum at the bottom gets evaluated, resulting in what I'd expect. But if I use a formula like #+TBLFM:@<<$3..@>>$3=if($2!=0,12*$2,$3);%.2f::@24$2=vsum(@I..@II);%.2f::@24$3=vsum(@I..@II);%.2f The sum gets calculated first, and the column after, meaning the sum doesn't reflect any changes made before calculation. I find this pretty strange considering the formulas are in the same order. Do formulas involving relative references get calculated last for some reason? On 2020-10-22 8:04 a.m., Maxim Nikulin wrote: > > Dante Catalfamo wrote: >> In the case where I'm using this formula, there are many more rows >> between @I..@II. I only used two in the example to keep the email small. >> I would also be adding more rows regularly, making it slightly >> impractical to be adjusting the beginning and end points of the formula >> every time I add or remove a row. I appreciate your suggestion, though I >> was hoping for a more convenient solution. If nothing else works, that's >> what I'll do. > > You are not alone. From my point of view it is not clear enough from org > manual that @I references could be used only to the right of "=". The > error message was a bad surprize. Another similar pitfal was with named > columns. > > However in some cases @<< (unlike @2 remains unchanged if a new line is > added before second row) and @>> could be a workaround. If there are > several horizontal lines, sometimes it is possible to mark particular > lines with # and use e.g. $3=vsum(@-I$-1..@+I$-1) to avoid proliferation > of same formulas for each table section. > >
