One of lifes little mystery?

The chimp would just use =A1="Bob".

using =IF(A1="Bob") to return a TRUE/FALSE result makes as much sense as

=+SUM(A1)
versus
=A1


"JethroUK©" wrote:


"PBalmanno" wrote in message
news:vUUWg.1235$BC6.242@fed1read01...

| It isn't flawed............ All the examples use a bolean 0
| or 1 - False or True wether the function is designed to consider False
| instead of True or vice versa is irrelevant...... indicate the
predominance of a False outcome........needing a definition for
|.....True condition......we certainly don't need two functions ......a
function ....designed with the predominance of a True |outcome........then
use a work around
|
|

If you say so - but just for the very deep bowels of google groups

=IF(A1="Bob")

has an obvious boolean answer that a well trained chimp could figure

there is no logical reason to 'design' the false argument as 'optional' and
not the true one

whilst several people have attempted to defend the design - none of them
stand up to scrutiny & i do consider it's no mare than just that 'a defence'

Microsoft are not about to change it's parameters (fix it properly) because
it would/could lead to backward compatability problems

neither of these things can change the fact that the function is
fundimentally flawed

"JethroUK©" wrote in message
...

"PBalmanno" wrote in message
news:vUUWg.1235$BC6.242@fed1read01...

| It isn't flawed............ All the examples use a bolean 0
| or 1 - False or True wether the function is designed to consider False
| instead of True or vice versa is irrelevant...... indicate the
predominance of a False outcome........needing a definition for
|.....True condition......we certainly don't need two functions ......a
function ....designed with the predominance of a True |outcome........then
use a work around
|
|

If you say so - but just for the very deep bowels of google groups

=IF(A1="Bob")

has an obvious boolean answer that a well trained chimp could figure

there is no logical reason to 'design' the false argument as 'optional'
and
not the true one

whilst several people have attempted to defend the design - none of them
stand up to scrutiny & i do consider it's no mare than just that 'a
defence'

Microsoft are not about to change it's parameters (fix it properly)
because
it would/could lead to backward compatability problems

neither of these things can change the fact that the function is
fundimentally flawed

You know, Microsoft is not the original designer of the IF function. The
first time I ran into it was on my Mac at the base, IIe at home using
VisiCalc back in the early 80s. It was Always =IF(?,True_Cond,False_Cond).
Find out if it's true first and default to false if it isn't. You'll have
to pin the rap on Software Arts who originated the software. Microsoft as
always copied it.