FastExcel V4 SpeedTools ideas

[John Brown]

I have had a couple of ideas for enhancements to the SpeedTools formulas, hope you don't mind.

Excel 365 seems to be eating SpeedTools' lunch somewhat, with equivalents to some of the formulas, eg VSTACK. And now that there is LET, I don't seem to have any need for SETMEM and GETMEM, unlike back in the day when I was using Morefunc, and used its equivalents of these functions a lot.

1.

An extra topic in the Help, containing a table giving all the SpeedTools formulas, and  comparing the SpeedTools formula to the native one, would be very helpful. - especially when to use one instead of the other.

eg Excel's FILTER function allows to run on arrays, so there are times I will use that instead of FastExcel FILTER.IFS.

2.

Could you add a formula to 'get' the listobject for a cell?

eg as a reference [maybe could specify between databody, header, and both],

or maybe as a string.

Currently I only know how to do this with a VBA UDF and I am trying to do without these.

Likewise for a sheet - eg the 1st listobject, the 2nd, the last, etc.

3.

Could MATCHES and/or MISSMATCHES be combined or extended to offer an 'everything' option - a VSTACK of a) all the matches,

b) all the rows only in range A, and

b) all the rows only in range B,

without any duplicates?

- and offer a match position mode, so return a column of row numbers?

4.

Could LISTDISTINCTS.COUNT and LISTDISTINCTS.SUM somehow to be combined, (or retired, and LISTDISTINCTS be given an extra parameter to allow it to output an extra 1 or 2 column) so that they can give a count AND a sum with one function call?

5.

Could MEMMATCH, AMATCH2 etc, and their lookup equivalents,

be able to carry on using memory,

but make it smarter/more sophisticated so that the exact kind of memory is hidden from the user, or at least, the program decides what kind of memory to use, based on the criteria you describe in the Help? - which I cannot get my head around, so the likelihood of my manually choosing the right kind of memory is not high.

That's enough for now! Thank you for your considering these,

John