Re: Length limitation of cell formulas

OK, the code still errors for me. However, the formula does continue to
work as long as you don't edit it and hit enter rather than escape. I did
edit it to see what it looked like - thus my initial response. So there may
be no internal limitation on the formula length, but that
knowledge/capability doesn't seem to have much practical use (at least to
me).

--
Regards,
Tom Ogilvy


"Peter T" <peter_t@discussions> wrote in message
news:e5fO9BcRFHA.3972@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hi Tom,
>
> We appear to get different results. I've doubled checked and the "long"
> formula with long *** name still works, on manual recalc or if I change
> any of the values on Sheet2 A1:A161. I've even pasted back the code from
my
> post. Also saved reopend a test file. No errors.
>
> Another difference - for me the "long" formula truncates to exactly 1000
> after changing the *** name, not 1023. The original formula length is
1019
> (before renaming the ***).
>
> The 5849 (typo 5489) characters is the calculated length of the formula
> after changing the *** name from "z" to the long name.
>
> Does it work / not work for anyone else ?
>
> Regards,
> Peter T
>
>
> "Tom Ogilvy" <twogilvy@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:eQw#aybRFHA.2356@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > that just caused an error on the first message box. (xl2003). The
> formula
> > was truncated to 1023 characters. what is the significance of 5489. It
> > appears the limit is 1024 as stated in help. If you do a recalc, you
will
> > see the truncated formula isn't functional (it isn't secretly working as
> it
> > appears you are trying to imply).
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Tom Ogilvy
> >
> > "Peter T" <peter_t@discussions> wrote in message
> > news:eTlBEZbRFHA.3144@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > typo:
> > >
> > > > ...length of 5489:
> > > should read
> > > length of 5849
> > >
> > > Peter T
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>


.