|
From: | Cecil Westerhof |
Subject: | Re: [O] Sub-totals |
Date: | Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:31:01 +0100 |
2014-02-15 16:19 GMT+01:00 Michael Brand <address@hidden>:
What about this?:
|--------------+------+-----|
|--------------+------+-----|
| activity | Time | sub |
|--------------+------+-----|
| Activity A | 3 | |
| Activity B | 5 | 34 |
| Activity C | 2 | 34 |
| Activity D | 7 | 34 |
| Activity E | 8 | 34 |
| Activity F | 12 | 34 || Activity 1 | 9 | 18 |
|--------------+------+-----|
| Activity 2 | 2 | 18 |
| Activity 3 | 4 | 18 |
| Activity 4 | 3 | 18 || Activity I | 23 | 111 |
|--------------+------+-----|
| Activity II | 51 | 111 |
| Activity III | 37 | 111 |#+TBLFM: @>$2 = vsum(@<<<..@>>) :: @<<<$3..@>>$3 = vsum(@address@hidden)
|--------------+------+-----|
| | 163 | |
|--------------+------+-----|
It is certainly a big step in the right direction. I have to study it to understand what it does. (You also changed the part I already had. I have to look to see why that is better.)There are a few problems with it:- As your example shows, the first element is not filled and when the first range only has one element …
- I would like to have only the last element of the range filled.But it is certainly helpful: thanks.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |