MicrosoftReturning to the original topic, I like the implicit intersection operator.
One thing I would like to query, though, is the fact that it is limited to returning a single value. In tradition Excel, that was an intentional device to limit the result of each formula evaluation to be a scalar. Now that a cell can hold an array result, isn't it somewhat perverse to limit '@' in this way.
Broadly, the operator could return the same array as
= ((R,C) name#)
allowing, for example, a row sum
= SUM(@name#)
where 'name' is the anchor cell of a 2D spilt array or a similar-sized range.
At first sight this would appear to violate the main purpose of the operator, namely to provide backward compatibility. But then again, is it absolutely essential that modern Excel should be capable of returning the same error? The developer should have corrected it.
I would also observe that the table operator Table1[@] returns an entire record.
