4 ms·
One facet of the apparent complexity comes from the fact that Excel's default "A1" cell indexing style is actually a facade for "R1C1" style references, which c
by RodgerTheGreat 4y ago
One facet of the apparent complexity comes from the fact that Excel's default "A1" cell indexing style is actually a facade for "R1C1" style references, which can express relative cell coordinates. A column of identical R1C1 references appear to change when you add or remove rows and columns around them because they're being shown as A1.
- HPsquared 4y agoThis, and updating of values when a cell is updated. Formula evaluation is based on a directed acyclic graph. If a node on the graph is updated, everything "downstream" gets updated but the formulas "upstream" don't get re-evaluated.
- rad_gruchalski 4y agoI read about the usage of dag in this problem. But my question is how are the actual cells referenced in the formula. As a user, I type =B12C34, then add two columns after A and 5 rows after row 5. The formula is now =D17E39. If I add 2 rows at row 20, the formula becomes =D17*E41. The offset-based approach is what I considered to be the most optimal so I’m happy to see that mentioned. So a complete solution would be a dag of offsets? A native internal representation would store something like: (col 4, row 17) operator (offset col +1, row +24).