Name - relative reference doesn't calculate

Build a uDF as I suggested earlier.

Function Sum3Above(rng As Range)
Application.Volatile
If rng.Cells.Count = 1 Then
If rng.Row 1 Then Sum3Above = rng.Offset(-1, 0)
If rng.Row 2 Then Sum3Above = Sum3Above + rng.Offset(-2, 0)
If rng.Row 3 Then Sum3Above = Sum3Above + rng.Offset(-3, 0)
End If
End Function


And call like H12: =Sum3Above(H12)

--
---
HTH

Bob


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



"Werner Rohrmoser" wrote in message
...
Lori,

I've made further tests as well and your Excel calculation description
helped me to find out that there is a difference between
using a named formula with relative references and to use a named
relative range
in a formula on a worksheet.

=SUM_Something_Formula vs SUM(Something_relative_Range)

The first possibility has no precednets (checked with the detective)
but the
2nd one has precedents.
So if you test both possibilities the first one doesn't calculate and
the second one does.

This has somekind of logic in connection with the Excel calculation
behaviour.
What's your opinion?

Regards
Werner

Lori's suggestion works for me.

An alternative using Bob's suggestion only with worksheet functions is to
make the formula volatile:

=SUM(Name)+TODAY()-TODAY()

--
Biff
Microsoft Excel MVP


"Werner Rohrmoser" wrote in message
...
Lori,

I've made further tests as well and your Excel calculation description
helped me to find out that there is a difference between
using a named formula with relative references and to use a named
relative range
in a formula on a worksheet.

=SUM_Something_Formula vs SUM(Something_relative_Range)

The first possibility has no precednets (checked with the detective)
but the
2nd one has precedents.
So if you test both possibilities the first one doesn't calculate and
the second one does.

This has somekind of logic in connection with the Excel calculation
behaviour.
What's your opinion?

Regards
Werner

A few keystrokes shorter:

=SUM(Name)+NOW()*0

--
Biff
Microsoft Excel MVP


"T. Valko" wrote in message
...
Lori's suggestion works for me.

An alternative using Bob's suggestion only with worksheet functions is to
make the formula volatile:

=SUM(Name)+TODAY()-TODAY()

--
Biff
Microsoft Excel MVP


"Werner Rohrmoser" wrote in message
...
Lori,

I've made further tests as well and your Excel calculation description
helped me to find out that there is a difference between
using a named formula with relative references and to use a named
relative range
in a formula on a worksheet.

=SUM_Something_Formula vs SUM(Something_relative_Range)

The first possibility has no precednets (checked with the detective)
but the
2nd one has precedents.
So if you test both possibilities the first one doesn't calculate and
the second one does.

This has somekind of logic in connection with the Excel calculation
behaviour.
What's your opinion?

Regards
Werner

But the whole problem with it is he wanted a generic function to sum say 3
cells above, so if you have to include a superset of that range, it ceases
to be generic.

--
---
HTH

Bob


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



"T. Valko" wrote in message
...
Lori's suggestion works for me.

An alternative using Bob's suggestion only with worksheet functions is to
make the formula volatile:

=SUM(Name)+TODAY()-TODAY()

--
Biff
Microsoft Excel MVP


"Werner Rohrmoser" wrote in message
...
Lori,

I've made further tests as well and your Excel calculation description
helped me to find out that there is a difference between
using a named formula with relative references and to use a named
relative range
in a formula on a worksheet.

=SUM_Something_Formula vs SUM(Something_relative_Range)

The first possibility has no precednets (checked with the detective)
but the
2nd one has precedents.
So if you test both possibilities the first one doesn't calculate and
the second one does.

This has somekind of logic in connection with the Excel calculation
behaviour.
What's your opinion?

Regards
Werner

And it fails if in the example if name is defined as !A1:A3 then you put
=SUM(Name) in A2.

--
---
HTH

Bob


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



"T. Valko" wrote in message
...
Lori's suggestion works for me.

An alternative using Bob's suggestion only with worksheet functions is to
make the formula volatile:

=SUM(Name)+TODAY()-TODAY()

--
Biff
Microsoft Excel MVP


"Werner Rohrmoser" wrote in message
...
Lori,

I've made further tests as well and your Excel calculation description
helped me to find out that there is a difference between
using a named formula with relative references and to use a named
relative range
in a formula on a worksheet.

=SUM_Something_Formula vs SUM(Something_relative_Range)

The first possibility has no precednets (checked with the detective)
but the
2nd one has precedents.
So if you test both possibilities the first one doesn't calculate and
the second one does.

This has somekind of logic in connection with the Excel calculation
behaviour.
What's your opinion?

Regards
Werner

I'm assuming that Name is correctly defined and, since the OP knows what
they want, they would know not to use such a formula on row 2. Maybe I'm
assuming too much?

--
Biff
Microsoft Excel MVP


"Bob Phillips" wrote in message
...
And it fails if in the example if name is defined as !A1:A3 then you put
=SUM(Name) in A2.

--
---
HTH

Bob


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



"T. Valko" wrote in message
...
Lori's suggestion works for me.

An alternative using Bob's suggestion only with worksheet functions is to
make the formula volatile:

=SUM(Name)+TODAY()-TODAY()

--
Biff
Microsoft Excel MVP


"Werner Rohrmoser" wrote in message
...
Lori,

I've made further tests as well and your Excel calculation description
helped me to find out that there is a difference between
using a named formula with relative references and to use a named
relative range
in a formula on a worksheet.

=SUM_Something_Formula vs SUM(Something_relative_Range)

The first possibility has no precednets (checked with the detective)
but the
2nd one has precedents.
So if you test both possibilities the first one doesn't calculate and
the second one does.

This has somekind of logic in connection with the Excel calculation
behaviour.
What's your opinion?

Regards
Werner

Bob,

thanks for your comments, using a UDF is a good solution, but I have
to use some ten thousand formulas
and this would need a lot of time to calculate the book (AFAIK).

Regards
Werner

Biff,

the trick seems to be to get this dammend formula calculated when the
dependent cells are changed.
Some post earlier I have mentioned that I have found out that the
calculation behaviour seems to depend
on whether Excel recognizes dependents or not.

Example 1: (Excel doesn't calculate automatically, only by pressing
"Ctrl+Alt+F9:")
Formula in cell "F1" is "=SumEveryThirdValue" and "SumEveryThirdValue"
is defined as a
named formula "=SUM(!A1,!C1,!E1)".
When you check the dependecies with the detective you get no traces on
the sheet.

Example 2: (Excel calculates automatically)
Formula in cell "F1" is "=SUM(RangeSumEveryThirdValue)" and
"RangeSumEveryThirdValue" is defined as a named range "=!A1,!C1,!E1".
When you check the dependecies with the detective you get traces on
the sheet.

So the difference between Example 1 and 2 is that in Ex 1 uses a named
formula and
Ex 2 I uses a named range, which is calculated on the worksheet and
has dependent cells
(the named range).

Question is: is it logic that Example 2 works and what about
reliabilty?

Regards
Werner

Werner Rohrmoser wrote...
I use a mane with a relative reference to sum 3 cells to the left
or in another case the 3rd, 6th, 9th and 12th cell to the left.
The syntax for the name is "!A1:A3" when my pointer is in A4,
formula is "=SUM(Name). I wrote it without the sheetname, because
I'd like to use it on every sheet I have in the book.
Now, when I change values in the precedent cells nothing happens
until I force a complete recalculation, it doesn't calculate
automatically, also F9 doesn't force the formula to calculate.
Any ideas or workarrounds, especially for "3rd, 6th, 9th and 12th"
case.
....

If the purpose of using such names is simplicity and uniformity of
formulas in adjacent cells, the better approach would be to use
worksheet-level names. For example, in worksheet A with cell A4 active
define the name A!name (predecing the name with the worksheet name
makes it a worksheet-level name rather than a workbook-level name)
referring to A!A1:A3. Enter the formula =SUM(name) in A4 and it
returns the sum of the values in A1:A3 in worksheet A.

Then copy A!A4 and paste it into B!A4, and that formula will return
the sum of the values in A1:A3 in worksheet B *AND* it will have
created the worksheet-level name B!name in worksheet B defined in the
same way that A!name is defined in worksheet A.

The potential disadvantage is that if you want to redefine such names,
you must redefine each one on every worksheet. You could use a macro
in a different workbook to iterate through all sheets in your main
workbook making the same changes to the relevant worksheet-level names.

Harlan,

I don't know whether you've red posting 17 in this thread, where I
have described my experience
with named relative ranges and named formulas with relative ranges.
I'm not sure whether Example 2 works in every case.

Anyway, I have the feeling based on the discussion in this thread that
it's better to avoid
named ranges like "=!A1,!A3,!A5" because Excel seems to have a problem
with this design (do you have the same experience?)
Using worksheet level names to get reliable recalculation along with
the benefits of simplicity and uniformity should be my choice.

Regards
Werner