Using Search and Lookup/Match/Index Functions

Originally Posted by Bob Phillips

Nobody suggested otherwise, indeed if you reverse the order of merger and demerger in the lookup table, mine fails and Pepe's works. I was just explaining to Pepe why his had failed, I did not expect to be critiqued for helping out.

But why is your comment to Pepe "helping out", yet mine to you a "critique"?

On the contrary, I was doing just as you did to Pepe: pointing out how your solution may fail, given a different dataset. Surely that is as much "helping" you in terms of your offered solution as you "helped" Pepe in terms of his?

One of the things I personally feel it is our obligation to try to do - as Forum Experts/Gurus - is to attempt to always give the most generalisable solution possible, and not, for example, one which works, but only by virtue of the current data being convenient so as to make it so.

A solution should take into account that that data may change, should it not?

Regards

Originally Posted by Bob Phillips

The difference is, I offered a solution, I don't recall seeing yours. So let's see your ... most generalisable solution

I'm sorry that my comment on your solution has obviously offended you. But I really don't think there's any need for such a sarcastic, argumentative response.

Besides, one should be free to offer comments/suggestions on other people's solutions without necessarily having to trump them.

Regards