Nick
n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu]On Behalf Of
> Chris Ruebeck
> Sent: 21 February 2005 22:04
> To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: st: RE: RE: Displaying values less than one with
> a zero in
> front of the comma
>
>
> I second two of Nick's ideas. (1) Always use the leading zero,
> although having the option to decide whether or not it's included in
> all formats is fine.
Whoa, just a small point please! I said I like this myself, not
that it should be the law!
(2) More flexibility in applying different
> formats to different parts of the display. I'm frustrated, in
> particular, when I want to use a fixed format but different
> variables'
> coefficients in my regression either have a different number of
> significant digits or (since the concept of significant digits is
> questionable in economics) different magnitudes of the least
> significant digit. Example 1: I'd rather see 0.023 and
> 0.0032 instead
> of either 0.0231 and 0.0032 or 2.3E-2 and 3.2E-3. Example 2: I'd
> rather see 2.3 and 0.32 than either 2.31 and 0.32 or 2.3 and 3.2E-1.
> ["and" takes precedence over "or" in parsing these examples.]
I am intrigued here. I don't understand the comment
about economics. Does the logic of showing economic
numbers differ from that elsewhere?
*
* 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/