Stata The Stata listserver
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

st: RE: Fwd: Infix Command


From   Doug Owens <dowens@welchcon.com>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   st: RE: Fwd: Infix Command
Date   Wed, 06 Oct 2004 16:21:22 -0500

I think the format is 9(13), which I've seen in COBOL code, meaning a 13 digit number.

Infix would have messed up the last couple of digits of the variable when read in as a float, not as a string, due to rounding. If you explicitly declare it to be stored as a double that should work too.

If this variable is quantitative data is it really measured precisely out to the 12th or 13th digit? In other words does the rounding matter in the slightest?


> It doesn't surprise me that -infix- doesn't
> behave as expected or hoped with input like
> 9(13). How would you expect or hope -infix- to
> interpret 9(13)?
>
> As you say, one option is to read in the data
> as string and carry out later surgery.
>
> Another option is to fix the problem upstream
> of Stata with a text editor or scripting language.
>
> I doubt there are any other options.
>
> Nick
> n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk

>> Rima Chakravarty
>>
>> I am trying to import an ascii file into Stata using the
>> infix command.
>> There are fields which has the format as 9(13), without any decimal
>> place but numeric. Stata is messing up the last two numbers of that
>> specific field in the imported Stata file. But if I import
>> that field as
>> a string field then it is importing it correctly. I have been
>> trying to
>> figure out why this is happening for quite sometime. Just
>> wondering if
>> anybody have an answer for this.


Doug Owens


*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/




© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index