![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS: DennisPRegan2@hotmail.com
DEAR SIR OR MS.,
MY NAME IS DENNIS REGAN AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU THAT I COULDN’T FIND THE ANSWER TO ONLINE OR IN LibreOffice Calc Help.
+) HOW CAN I CONVERT A NUMBER IN LibreOffice CALC TO TEXT IN LibreOffice CALC?
THERE ARE AN AWFUL LOT OF FORMULAS AND SYNTAX FOR EXCEL ONLINE FOR THIS BUT NONE WORK IN LibreOffice Calc.
PLEASE ADVISE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE USING THIS EMAIL OR THE EMAIL ADDRESS FOUND ABOVE. THANK YOU!
Very Sincerely,
Dennis Regan
I think the formula you want is "TEXT".
I'm not too sure on the format parameter to this function, haven't
checked that, but for me a format string of "#.##" worked fine for a
number with a decimal place. You should be able to find further details
of the format string in the help or online.
So, for example, I put the number "1234.5" in cell A1, then in cell B1
I put the formula '=TEXT(A1,"#.##")', and now cell B1 holds the text
string "1234.5".
I hope this is what you were looking for.
Paul
Hi Dennis,
What format will the numbers themselves be entered in?
In addition to "TEXT" you can also use the "DOLLAR" function, which
will use your localization information to format the number as text
string with a currency symbol, thousands separator and decimal places.
To use the "TEXT" function, you can use a format string of "$#,#.##" to
get those things as well.
I know of no way to get the number written out as words, at least not
with stock Calc.
This question (see URL [1]) on ask.libreoffice.org discusses
this, and three possible solutions are given:
* This add-on (see URL [2]), but it seems that it is no longer
maintained, and may not work for the latest versions of LO. I haven't
tried it, so you'll have to see for yourself.
* There is also mention of this Microsoft article that gives some macro
code for Excel (see URL [3]), which presumably could be converted to
work with Calc.
* Some code is also given, presumably for LO Basic, but it seems to be
for Indian currency. This could probably also be converted to your
currency of choice.
[1]http://ask.libreoffice.org/en/question/1194/convert-numbers-to-english-words/
[2]http://extensions.libreoffice.org/extension-center/numbertext-1
[3]http://support.microsoft.com/kb/213360
So in short there seems to be no easy way of doing this. You might find
that the extension works for you, or you might have to write a macro to
do this, using one of the two examples as a starting point.
Hope this helped.
Paul
Hi there!
You can convert a number in text if you place an apostrophe sign before your number (e.g. '123). Also, you can select desired cells and then use Format menu>Cells....>Numbers tab>Category>Text >OK.
Cristi
Hi 
It's an unusual problem that looks a lot like a fairly frequently
asked question. Your question has an extra twist which we didn't
notice earlier.
I am not sure if there is an easy way to convert numbers to words. ie
2,000 to "Two thousand"
So far people have been talking about how to make the numbers look
like numbers still but just be unable to perform calculations using
them. It's good for telephone numbers, zip-codes and that sort of
thing.
There might be an "Extension" (what other people call "Add-ons" or
"Plug-ins") to do that in LibreOffice itself or there might be a
separate "app" (or program) that can do this outside of LibreOffice.
Our Extensions page is here;
http://www.libreoffice.org/features/extensions/
Most are written by 3rd parties but some are very popular. There are
also Extensions written for OpenOffice which might still work with LO
or it might be easy to contact their devs to ask them if they could
update it for LO.
Sorry this isn't very helpful!
Apols and regards from
Tom
Try this link. Specifically the function getAmountInWord in the described macro.
Don't try the extension.
Alex
Hi
Just forwarding Alex's excellent answer jic Dennis is not subscribed
to this mailing list. Judging from the 10hours with no response that
seems quite likely. Errr, actually we didn't get Alex's link on-list
but hopefully he can do "Reply to all" to make sure Dennis and all do
get it this time.
Regards from
Tom
Off topic, but I'm just so surprised that nobody complained about shouting
(using upper case letters)… and about top posting.
Johnny Rosenberg
Off topic, but I'm just so surprised that nobody complained about
shouting (using upper case letters)… and about top posting.Johnny Rosenberg
Well, as to the shouting, I guess I kind of assumed the OP was new to
this, and didn't want to criticize, but you're right, somebody should
have corrected him.
Top posting is the preferred way to reply. At least for me. I really
don't understand why some people insist on bottom posting and making
the lives of everyone reading the thread more difficult, but that's
just my opinion. So far this group hasn't tried to enforce a One Way Of
Doing Things (tm) on anybody, unlike some other groups I am subscribed
to.
Paul
> Off topic, but I'm just so surprised that nobody complained about
> shouting (using upper case letters)… and about top posting.
>
>
> Johnny RosenbergWell, as to the shouting, I guess I kind of assumed the OP was new to
this, and didn't want to criticize, but you're right, somebody should
have corrected him.
Well, let's say ”informed him”, in a nice way, of course.
Top posting is the preferred way to reply. At least for me. I really
don't understand why some people insist on bottom posting and making
the lives of everyone reading the thread more difficult, but that's
just my opinion. So far this group hasn't tried to enforce a One Way Of
Doing Things (tm) on anybody, unlike some other groups I am subscribed
to.
I'm subscribed to a few groups myself, maybe I confused this one with the
Apache OpenOffice one, but most of them seems to prefer everything but top
posting. Personally I prefer this way, I'm not sure what to call it, but
I'm doing it right now…
Johnny Rosenberg
It is called bottom or in-line posting, and is preferred by the more technically inclined.
It is primarily Outlook users who prefer blind top-posting (ie, quoting the entire message they are replying to and adding their comment at the top).
Most people who are rabidly anti bottom/inline posting will go out of their way to complain about how bad bottom posting is, and will invariably use BLIND bottom posting - quoting the ENTIRE message ABOVE your comment, which is admittedly way WORSE than blind top-posting - as examples of why bottom/inline posting is bad. They almost always simply refuse to even acknowledge the difference between BLIND bottom posting, and inline posting (quoting only the relevant portion, and putting your responses/comments AFTER the relevant quoted text, which is much cleaner and easier to read than even top-posting, mainly because you can clearly see the full context).
Here we go again.
There is top-posting, which is, in general, a good thing, and is preferred by most email users, including the technically inclined, like myself. Its primary advantage is that it is a great courtesy to the readers of email threads, who can quickly assess a contribution to the thread for relevance to them. A secondary advantage for the poster is that it increases the likelihood that the new material will actually be read, or at least skimmed.
There is in-line posting, which is necessary when you need to reply to specific points in a previous post. You can put your comments into the immediate context to which they apply. This is also a good thing, if the circumstances require it.
Then there is bottom-posting. It's a kind of virus that contaminates, primarily, open-source mailing lists. When a poster is infected he (yes, overwhelmingly, he) is overcome with the urge to tell people what to do. He is filled with a (completely spurious) sense of righteousness. He is a rebel, he is liberated, he carries the banner of freedom (free as in speech) against the grinding capitalist forces of oppression and regimentation. Therefore, you MUST DO AS YOU ARE TOLD. And so the champions of freedom become tuppenny Trotskys, low-rent Lenins, and we can say a quiet prayer of thanks that their influence extends no farther than the occasional mailing-list.
How do I know? I've been there. I am now afflicted by a complementary virus. I am equally righteous and insufferable. I know, I know. But my desire is to see all of this nonsense fade away into an easy-going environment of live and let live. Bakunin before Lenin, and classical small-l liberalism before either.
Peter West
And he said to them, "Do you not yet understand?"
It is called bottom or in-line posting, and is preferred by the more technically inclined.
Bottom and Top posting seems to be a personal preference often pursued with religious zeal (as you mention below). While quickly browsing, top posting is easier to follow unless your email client hides all previous posts for you. I installed an extension to do this in Thunderbird; without it, bottom posting is almost impossible to follow. The extension makes it easy to follow ongoing conversations regardless, but is annoying if you were not following things from the start and want to catch-up 
in-line posting seems to be assumed for Thunderbird. Makes the response more like a conversation.
It is primarily Outlook users who prefer blind top-posting (ie, quoting the entire message they are replying to and adding their comment at the top).
You must work hard to get Outlook to do anything else. I know you used to be able to convince Outlook to do otherwise. I don't even know if you can still do that. Every time MS releases a new version of something these days, it usually feels like I need to relearn the product. It annoys me.
My limited exposure says that every large company using Outlook likely works in this way.
Most people who are rabidly anti bottom/inline posting will go out of their way to complain about how bad bottom posting is, and will invariably use BLIND bottom posting - quoting the ENTIRE message ABOVE your comment, which is admittedly way WORSE than blind top-posting - as examples of why bottom/inline posting is bad. They almost always simply refuse to even acknowledge the difference between BLIND bottom posting, and inline posting (quoting only the relevant portion, and putting your responses/comments AFTER the relevant quoted text, which is much cleaner and easier to read than even top-posting, mainly because you can clearly see the full context).
You can make everyone angry and happy by doing both. Place your entire message at both the top and the bottom
It is called bottom or in-line posting, and is preferred by the more
technically inclined.Bottom and Top posting seems to be a personal preference often pursued
with religious zeal (as you mention below). While quickly browsing, top
posting is easier to follow unless your email client hides all previous
posts for you. I installed an extension to do this in Thunderbird; without
it, bottom posting is almost impossible to follow. The extension makes it
easy to follow ongoing conversations regardless, but is annoying if you
were not following things from the start and want to catch-up
I don't use an email client, but the Gmail web interface also hides lines
from previous posts. They are however easy to view if you need to.
Unfortunately, top-posting seems to be the default mode for Gmail, but it's
easy to work around.
in-line posting seems to be assumed for Thunderbird. Makes the response
more like a conversation.It is primarily Outlook users who prefer blind top-posting (ie, quoting
the entire message they are replying to and adding their comment at the
top).You must work hard to get Outlook to do anything else. I know you used to
be able to convince Outlook to do otherwise. I don't even know if you can
still do that. Every time MS releases a new version of something these
days, it usually feels like I need to relearn the product. It annoys me.My limited exposure says that every large company using Outlook likely
works in this way.Most people who are rabidly anti bottom/inline posting will go out of
their way to complain about how bad bottom posting is, and will invariably
use BLIND bottom posting - quoting the ENTIRE message ABOVE your comment,
which is admittedly way WORSE than blind top-posting - as examples of why
bottom/inline posting is bad. They almost always simply refuse to even
acknowledge the difference between BLIND bottom posting, and inline posting
(quoting only the relevant portion, and putting your responses/comments
AFTER the relevant quoted text, which is much cleaner and easier to read
than even top-posting, mainly because you can clearly see the full context).You can make everyone angry and happy by doing both. Place your entire
message at both the top and the bottom
And in-line. The angrier the better…
Johnny Rosenberg
Tom, please do NOT CC me directly, I am on the list and certainly don't need to see your messages twice.
As the User Support mailing list for a gateway project i think it's
fairly good that we help people to learn that there are alternatives
to top-posting without making anyone feel as unwelcome as certain
other projects like to make their new users feel.
That is hilarious coming from you Tom, since:
1. you never, EVER bottom/inline post, and
2. you are a perfect example of what I meant in my comment about people who use examples of BLIND bottom posting as why bottom/inline posting it is bad.
I will admit one thing: blind bottom posting is much worse than blind top posting.
Lol! Thanks for the laugh Johnny...
In case you are wondering, the funny bit is how quickly you disproved your very first comment.
It is impossible to read email without using an email client. In your case, it just happens to be a web browser.
I ceased worrying about this controversy, but when the topic comes up, I'll chime in to keep the blind top post proponents honest.
I don't use an email client, but the Gmail web interface also hides lines
from previous posts.Lol! Thanks for the laugh Johnny...
<childishness>
Don't thank me, I hate when people do that. Just give me money. The more,
the merrier…
In case you are wondering, the funny bit is how quickly you disproved your
very first comment.
No, I just wrote in a foreign language. I don't have a clue what at least
half of what I write really means. I just pour out some English looking
words everywhere, hoping someone will understand what I'm trying to say.
Obviously I fail every time, so I guess I should just stop writing,
especially since I don't even use LibreOffice anymore…
It is impossible to read email without using an email client. In your
case, it just happens to be a web browser.
He he he… you are worse than me…
Of course I didn't mean exactly what I wrote word by word, but since my
English sucks (extremely bad) I tried to make it simple. Of course I meant
that I use the Gmail web interface rather than a dedicated email client.
Using the web interface, I guess I use an email client that is located
somewhere else than on my own HDD, so if I switch browser I still get the
same user interface. I don't know if this means exactly that I wanted to
say in my own language, but I guess it's more correct than what you will
get if I write it in my own language and you translate it with Google
Translate or similar…
The web browser I use is Opera, which indeed also includes an email client
(M2), which I however don't use (anymore). I used it many years ago and it
was great, but there was something, I don't remember what, that made me
abandon M2. I guess it didn't support some ”important” Gmail feature or
something.
Of course you could have avoided all the text above if you just didn't
pretend that you didn't know what I meant in the first place. It seems like
everybody else understood, despite my terrible English, which probably is
worse than anything you ever saw before in your life. Ever. Ever ever ever.
Very ever. Kind of. Well, not as bad that I can't make it any worser… (ha
ha ha… – oops… that laugh was obviously in my language, sorry for that,
because I can't go back and correct it, can I…? 
)
I ceased worrying about this controversy, but when the topic comes up,
I'll chime in to keep the blind top post proponents honest.
Among other things, as it seems.
</childishness>
Johnny Rosenberg
P.S. Google Translate was used several times when I wrote the crap above,
and still I didn't get it right… I know, nobody wants to know, but those
didn't read this anyway.
D.S.
whatever, your English is pretty much as good as the native speakers' on this list. (and you know it.<g>)
F.
Tom, please do NOT CC me directly, I am on the list and certainly don't
need to see your messages twice.As the User Support mailing list for a gateway project i think it's
fairly good that we help people to learn that there are alternatives
to top-posting without making anyone feel as unwelcome as certain
other projects like to make their new users feel.
Gratuitous, contradictory nonsense.
That is hilarious coming from you Tom, since:
1. you never, EVER bottom/inline post, and
This is not the case historically when corresponding to programmers on
their list(s)
Dennis,
It looks to me that you're asking how to convert a number to the words that
are spoken to say that number.
You've asked how to "convert a number ... to text". People familiar with
programming/macros and data types will read that and think of something
different than creating the words to speak the number.
I found a few solutions, links below, from different sources that take a
number and write out the words to speak the number. None however are
solutions written for Calc. The links do provide solutions how to convert a
number to words with other programs. The logic will be the same in Calc but
the syntax will need to be converted to Calc. Perhaps someone familiar with
programming can assist you to create a Calc function that does what you
wish.
http://delphi.about.com/od/objectpascalide/a/curr2words.htm
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/213360
http://www.dbase.com/codelib/Plus/dUFLPPlus_AA.zip this last is a small
code library written for a product called dBASE. In this library are
routines called Cash2Check, Num2Words, and Thou2Words. The logic of the
three routines is used together to convert a number to the words to say the
number. I can attest to the 1995 (approximately) version of this function
working correctly.
-Alan