Max
You have a very valid point.
It is sometimes "fun" to try to minimise a formula result, which can(?)
be appreciated amongst regulars, but equally can leave the OP totally
confused. I hold my hands up as "Guilty" on this occasion, in this
respect.
On the other hand, alternative constructs to solve a problem can be
useful in learning new techniques, and I have certainly learnt a lot
from the sometimes "offbeat" responses, from Dana, JE, Harlan and others
(yourself and Biff included of course <bg>), where approaching the
problem from a different perspective can be quite enlightening.
For my own part, I nearly always work through a different construct to
understand how and why the result is returned, but I cannot (should not)
assume that others will do the same.
Sometimes (when I have the time), I do take the time to explain the
logic behind the proposed solution, but equally, I can often think the
reader may think I am "trying to teach my granny to suck eggs".
How to get the balance right, that is the question, and I for one don't
know the answer.
Biff
In answer to your "nitpick", null is <=10 hence the 500 result is true.
You are right, however, but it can be resolved with
=((500+MIN(2,INT(A1/10))*100)*(A1<=30)*ISNUMBER(A1))
but then the formula is beginning to approach the length of other
solutions <vbg>
I thank you both for all of your frequent and interesting posts which I
read with interest.
