Athos

Certainly, but only the last one. I left it in to make the use of the
relative row reference more obvious typographically.

In article ,
"Bob Phillips" wrote:

The $ is a bit superfluous

That's the one I was talking about. How does that make it more obvious
typographically?

--

HTH

Bob Phillips
... looking out across Poole Harbour to the Purbecks
(remove nothere from the email address if mailing direct)

"JE McGimpsey" wrote in message
...
Certainly, but only the last one. I left it in to make the use of the
relative row reference more obvious typographically.

In article ,
"Bob Phillips" wrote:

The $ is a bit superfluous

Well, perhaps it's just me, but if the "1" is the only character without
a "$" prefix, it emphasizes that the "1" is relative.


In article ,
"Bob Phillips" wrote:

That's the one I was talking about. How does that make it more obvious
typographically?

Why being to picky - picky?
As I said before, it's elemental simplicity is just damned clever!
That's all that really counts (besides ... of course ... attaining the
desired result).
--
Regards,

RD

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please keep all correspondence within the NewsGroup, so all may benefit !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bob Phillips" wrote in message
...
That's the one I was talking about. How does that make it more obvious
typographically?

--

HTH

Bob Phillips
... looking out across Poole Harbour to the Purbecks
(remove nothere from the email address if mailing direct)

"JE McGimpsey" wrote in message
...
Certainly, but only the last one. I left it in to make the use of the
relative row reference more obvious typographically.

In article ,
"Bob Phillips" wrote:

The $ is a bit superfluous