MicrosoftI generalized a bit this hypotetic "UNION" formula but one thing isn't clear for me - why I need to have the num-columns parameter in index
My generalized formula looks like:
=LET(
tabel1;C9#; /* replace with 1st range */
tabel2;G9#; /* replace with 2nd range -- o **bleep** - could we have comments in excel formulas 🙂 */
rows1;ROWS(tabel1);
irows;SEQUENCE(ROWS(tabel1)+ROWS(tabel2));
icols;SEQUENCE(;MAX(COLUMNS(tabel1);COLUMNS(tabel2)));
IFERROR(IF(irows>rows1;INDEX(tabel2;irows-rows1;icols);INDEX(tabel1;irows;icols));0))
It works and with different shape regions
What isn't clear for my
=LET( /* this one produce me FULL 3rd ROW */
tabel1;C9#;
irows;SEQUENCE(ROWS(tabel1));
INDEX(tabel1;3;))
=LET( /* this produce me single column only */
tabel1;C9#;
irows;SEQUENCE(ROWS(tabel1));
INDEX(tabel1;irows;))
BOTH those formulas uses INDEX same way? WHy I need to insert num-columns into 2nd one but 1st one works without?
