I am imagining wired-in functions. They would not be user-tunable beyond
specifying arguments.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Airey
Sent: 10 January 2008 16:49
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: st: My last word on strange world
On Jan 10, 2008, at 10:40 AM, Nick Cox wrote:
> Manifestly, Stata doesn't do as Richard suggests. In each case,
> missings
> on x will be ignored only if you specify that, e.g., by -inrange(x,
> 42,
> .)-.
>
> I think I once proposed, or at any rate once thought of, a -gt()-
> function (those not familiar with old Fortrans can think "greater
> than")
> such that
>
> gt(x, y) is 1 if x > y & x < . & y < . and 0 otherwise.
>
> Similarly ge(), lt(), le() for >=, <, <=.
>
> But I would be surprised at any enthusiasm for this. Everyone seems to
> want to want to keep >, >=, <, <= together with "do what I mean".
That sounds useful! Then each could have there own gt function set to
function like R, or like SAS, or like Stata!
-Dave
*
* 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/
*
* 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/
