Re: st: status of -ds- command

[Michael Norman Mitchell <Michael.Norman.Mitchell@gmail.com>]

Dear Bill

  I can hear the applause all the way over here (that is, applause for 
the restoring of -ds- to documented). Although this is an odd little 
command, to me its combination of power and simplicity embodies much of 
the philosophy of Stata.

Hooray!

Michael N. Mitchell
See the Stata tidbit of the week at...
http://www.MichaelNormanMitchell.com

On 2010-03-03 10.21 AM, William Gould, StataCorp LP wrote:
> The issue of the "previously documented" status -ds- has popped up yet
> again on Statalist.
>
> I don't even want to try to defend "previously documented".  We are
> restoring -ds- to documented status.
>
> All of which is to say, we realize our mistake.  As I recall, our
> concern about -ds- was that it was a strange combination of
> easy-to-use features mixed with advanced features.  We found the
> combination philosophically offensive.  So what did we do?  We moved
> -ds- to "previously documented", which I guess is something like
> "double-secret probation", and at the same time we did nothing to
> address the problem that -ds- was designed to address!  The
> offense to our sensibilities removed, we declared the issue closed.
> Stupid, stupid, stupid.
>
> To be clear, I signed onto the stupid idea.
>
> In my and StataCorp's defense, we spend very little time cleaning up
> our own messes.  A perfectly run company, however, wouldn't create
> messes in the first place.
>
> -- Bill
> wgould@stata.com
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> *   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> *   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>    
*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/