alias for the INDIRECT function

Gang - I'm using the INDIRECT function lots of times in my cell formula
and it is taking up a lot of space. Is there a way to assign an alias
"IND" e.g., to a function and use that in a cell reference instead of
the actual function name?

Regards,

Mike

Maybe for simple cases. If A1 contains 123 and Z100 contains
=INDIRECT("A1") it will also display 123

The tiny UDF

Function ind(s As String)
ind = Range(s).Value
End Function

will do the same thing. If the expression is complex, it may need EVALUATION
--
Gary''s Student


"Takeadoe" wrote:

> Gang - I'm using the INDIRECT function lots of times in my cell formula
> and it is taking up a lot of space. Is there a way to assign an alias
> "IND" e.g., to a function and use that in a cell reference instead of
> the actual function name?
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
>

Gary''s Student wrote...
....
>The tiny UDF
>
>Function ind(s As String)
>ind = Range(s).Value
>End Function
>
>will do the same thing. If the expression is complex, it may need EVALUATION
....

But serves no purpose. UDFs *always* recalculate more slowly than
built-in functions, and they take more memory in RAM and storage space
on disk. Excel doesn't store formulas as text. Excel converts formulas
into a binary form when you enter them, and built-in functions are
represented as particular byte codes. UDFs are also represented as byte
codes. The end result is no difference in RAM or disk storage used for
the cell formulas, additional RAM and disk storage used for the VBA
module containing the udf's code, and much slower recalculation time.

Why would anyone who knows what s/he's doing use udfs for this?

Harlan:

You are correct in all regards. Using a UDF in this instance is silly.
However, you must admit that:
1. INDIRECT has 8 letters and IND only 3
2. IND is much easier to spell
--
Gary's Student


"Harlan Grove" wrote:

> Gary''s Student wrote...
> ....
> >The tiny UDF
> >
> >Function ind(s As String)
> >ind = Range(s).Value
> >End Function
> >
> >will do the same thing. If the expression is complex, it may need EVALUATION
> ....
>
> But serves no purpose. UDFs *always* recalculate more slowly than
> built-in functions, and they take more memory in RAM and storage space
> on disk. Excel doesn't store formulas as text. Excel converts formulas
> into a binary form when you enter them, and built-in functions are
> represented as particular byte codes. UDFs are also represented as byte
> codes. The end result is no difference in RAM or disk storage used for
> the cell formulas, additional RAM and disk storage used for the VBA
> module containing the udf's code, and much slower recalculation time.
>
> Why would anyone who knows what s/he's doing use udfs for this?
>
>

GS

Which just happens to be what the OP wanted.

A shorter spelling of INDIRECT.

In that respect, your UDF "serves a purpose".


Gord



On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:39:02 -0700, Gary''s Student
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Harlan:
>
>You are correct in all regards. Using a UDF in this instance is silly.
>However, you must admit that:
>1. INDIRECT has 8 letters and IND only 3
>2. IND is much easier to spell

Gord Dibben MS Excel MVP

In that case, wouldn't it make more sense to set up a "auto correct" entry
that maps IND into INDIRECT?

--
Regards,

Tushar Mehta
www.tushar-mehta.com
Excel, PowerPoint, and VBA add-ins, tutorials
Custom MS Office productivity solutions

In article <[email protected]>, Gord Dibben
<gorddibbATshawDOTca> says...
> GS
>
> Which just happens to be what the OP wanted.
>
> A shorter spelling of INDIRECT.
>
> In that respect, your UDF "serves a purpose".
>
>
> Gord
>
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:39:02 -0700, Gary''s Student
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Harlan:
> >
> >You are correct in all regards. Using a UDF in this instance is silly.
> >However, you must admit that:
> >1. INDIRECT has 8 letters and IND only 3
> >2. IND is much easier to spell
>
> Gord Dibben MS Excel MVP
>

The OP mentions about Indirect "taking up a lot of space".

That *doesn't* sound like it's a typing issue, but perhaps a formula length
issue, where the formula bar may be covering some of the cells.
--
Regards,

RD

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please keep all correspondence within the NewsGroup, so all may benefit !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Tushar Mehta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In that case, wouldn't it make more sense to set up a "auto correct" entry
> that maps IND into INDIRECT?
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Tushar Mehta
> www.tushar-mehta.com
> Excel, PowerPoint, and VBA add-ins, tutorials
> Custom MS Office productivity solutions
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Gord Dibben
> <gorddibbATshawDOTca> says...
>> GS
>>
>> Which just happens to be what the OP wanted.
>>
>> A shorter spelling of INDIRECT.
>>
>> In that respect, your UDF "serves a purpose".
>>
>>
>> Gord
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:39:02 -0700, Gary''s Student
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Harlan:
>> >
>> >You are correct in all regards. Using a UDF in this instance is silly.
>> >However, you must admit that:
>> >1. INDIRECT has 8 letters and IND only 3
>> >2. IND is much easier to spell
>>
>> Gord Dibben MS Excel MVP
>>

Agreed

Gord

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:46:12 -0400, Tushar Mehta
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In that case, wouldn't it make more sense to set up a "auto correct" entry
>that maps IND into INDIRECT?

Gord Dibben MS Excel MVP

"Ragdyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%23GtlMF%[email protected]...
> The OP mentions about Indirect "taking up a lot of space".
>
> That *doesn't* sound like it's a typing issue, but perhaps a formula
> length issue, where the formula bar may be covering some of the cells.

>>Gang - I'm using the INDIRECT function lots of times in my cell formula
>>and it is taking up a lot of space

Yep, sounds like a monster formula.

Biff

Biff wrote...
....
>Yep, sounds like a monster formula.

In which case replacing INDIRECT with IND would only be a bandaid (and
since function names can be as short as 1 character, wouldn't I be even
better than IND?). If a udf were useful, it could do a lot more than
just replace INDIRECT.

Which gets to the core of the matter. There could be better ways to
rewrite the OPs formula(s), but if the OP won't show us the actual
formula(s), then all we can do is idly speculate.

"Harlan Grove" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Biff wrote...
> ...
>>Yep, sounds like a monster formula.
>
> Which gets to the core of the matter. There could be better ways to
> rewrite the OPs formula(s), but if the OP won't show us the actual
> formula(s), then all we can do is idly speculate.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Biff