RE: st: My last word on strange world

[Richard Williams <Richard.A.Williams.5@ND.edu>]

At 11:40 AM 1/10/2008, 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".
The proposal I made 4 years ago was for an if2 qualifier, where ifs 
would follow the same logic that SPSS does.  A little quirky, I know, 
but then all existing syntax continues to work fine as is:

http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2004-01/msg00136.html


-------------------------------------------
Richard Williams, Notre Dame Dept of Sociology
OFFICE: (574)631-6668, (574)631-6463
HOME:   (574)289-5227
EMAIL:  Richard.A.Williams.5@ND.Edu
WWW:    http://www.nd.edu/~rwilliam

*
*   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/