Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:38:26 -0400
Reply-To: "Fehd, Ronald J. (PHPPO)" <rjf2@CDC.GOV>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: "Fehd, Ronald J. (PHPPO)" <rjf2@CDC.GOV>
Subject: Re: %include versus SAS Autocall Facility
> From: Jennifer R. Holdcraft [mailto:jrholdcraft@AEP.COM]
> I'm looking for some advice on the use of %include vs.
> autocall libraries.
It's Friday, isn't it?
it must be, I knew I was having PMS (Programmers' Mental Stress)
when I missed the whole point of your question:
"We use macros; do we
* A %include them at top of program,
* B. turn on the autocall option
and let SAS go find them when we need them?"
you know Bozos, right?
Dec 6 2001
so, let me ask:
* do you save the logs of these programs that you run
with or without %includes?
* do you have
so that you can see the directory specification
-and- the statements inside the file
-before- you use them?
so what I hear, not you, but the other guy, saying is, in effect:
<assume Valley Girl pose:
hand on hip, over staight leg,
bend other knee, toe just touching floor
arm out, index finger pointing down>
"I got to have the log full of %included, but not used, program statements
like, -before- I ever get around to starting to read the program!"
Oh, these youngsters that enjoy the White-Knuckle experience of Ultimate
"Look, boss, I -read- 10K lines of log today!"
[rolls eyes, is underinpressed]
as Lex Jansen has just pointed out
hard-coding filerefs will sooner or later
get you in Big Trouble.
Soft-coding is the way to go.
for a utility program which lists macro names
and the file that contains them
and the directory that the file is in
see tip: view AutoCall
* do you -save- those voluminous logs? like, who cares?
TGIF! LOL #-D and remember to read the .sig
Ron Fehd the macro maven CDC Atlanta GA USA RJF2@cdc.gov
RTFL: I'm an engineer, I don't get paid to know,
I get paid to know where to look it up.
RTFL: Read The Finite Log.
Repetition reduction enhances elegance!
Repetition reduction furthers finesse!