[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

RE: st: gsort issue

From   "Steichen, Thomas J." <>
To   <>
Subject   RE: st: gsort issue
Date   Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:47:57 -0400

Isn't the simplest solution that missing should never be treated in
Stata code as a "number"? 

Thus, things like sorts would need a documented definition of where
missing go but we wouldn't have to work around the "numeric" missing
so often. 

For example, 
  replace x = 3 if x > 2 & != . 
becomes the much simpler
  replace x = 3 if x > 2

I wonder how often I've messed up analyses because I forgot to tag
on the "& != ." ? 

(Hmmmmm, the "& != ." kind of looks like cartoon-speak for what I 
usually say when I notice I've failed to add the tag!)

Clearly, I'd much rather have Stata's code deal with this than for me 
to remember all the time, even if there is a processing overhead.


Thomas J. Steichen
-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Nick Cox
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 5:35 PM
Subject: RE: st: gsort issue

I think that would bite more often than it blessed. 


Jeph Herrin
> Or even,
>   set missing smallest
> ?

*   For searches and help try:

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message, including any
attachment(s), contains information that may be confidential,
protected by the attorney-client or other legal privileges, and/or
proprietary non-public information. If you are not an intended
recipient of this message or an authorized assistant to an intended
recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and
then delete it from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution,
or reproduction of this message and/or any of its attachments (if
any) by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index