Forum Discussion

7 Replies

  • SergeiBaklan's avatar
    SergeiBaklan
    Diamond Contributor

    havish_madhvapaty 

    Such feedbacks better to publish on feedback portal Excel · Community (microsoft.com) , Microsoft monitors it.

     

    This particular request exists for years. Microsoft makes dialog boxes resizable one by one, but formula evaluate is still postponed. You may add your vote here

    Make all windows (Dialog Boxes) containing variable-sized content resizable · Community (microsoft.com)

    Make the Evaluate Formula dialog bigger · Community (microsoft.com)

     

    More votes - more chances it'll be done faster.

  • mathetes's avatar
    mathetes
    Silver Contributor

    havish_madhvapaty 

     

    Might I offer a suggestion? From the looks of that formula, just the small part that appears in your screen capture, it could be a case study in the kind of formula that can be written, but should NOT be. The textbooks on Excel all warn against llllloooonnnnngggg formulas because they become unintelligible, even to their original creator, and therefore more error prone and difficult to maintain even if they work when first created.

     

    You'd be far better served by breaking this into several steps, doing the internal evaluations (formulas) with clear results at each stage along the way, maybe hiding the columns (or rows) containing the intermediate "helper" formulas. Rare is the case where that's not possible, and it makes for much greater clarity.

    • abdullahabid's avatar
      abdullahabid
      Copper Contributor

      Hi mathetes, thanks for suggestion. I have tried breaking this into several steps using  the intermediate "helper" formulas, but the current small sized "Evaluate Formula" dialogue box still doesn't prove to be very easy to use.

      • JoeUser2004's avatar
        JoeUser2004
        Bronze Contributor

        abdullahabid 

         

        Aside, having nothing to do with the size of the Evaluate Formula dialog box....

         

        Instead of the form

         

        IFNA(IFS(condition1, result1, ..., conditionN, resultN), defaultResult)

         

        it would be better to write

         

        IFS(condition1, result1, ..., conditionN, resultN, TRUE, defaultResult)

        or

        IFS(condition1, result1, ..., TRUE, resultN)

         

        Use the latter form only if resultN is the intended defaultResult.

         

        The point is:  it is "good practice" to have a TRUE condition/result pair at the end of IFS expressions to avoid an unintended #N/A error, just as it is "good practice" to have a value-if-false expression at the end of IF expressions to avoid an unintended FALSE result.

Resources