LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (August 2005, week 2)Back to main SAS-L pageJoin or leave SAS-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:45:24 -0700
Reply-To:     David L Cassell <davidlcassell@MSN.COM>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         David L Cassell <davidlcassell@MSN.COM>
Subject:      Re: OPTIONS statement: Style question
In-Reply-To:  <>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

david5705@HOTMAIL.COM wrote: >I've seen the following two styles for specifying SAS OPTIONS: > >(1) options a b c d e ; > >(2) options a ; > options b c ; > options d ; > options e ; > >I typically use (1). What is the advantage - if any - of using (2).

If you use version #2, it may be easier for your corporate structure to do maintenance and debugging.

options a ; /* explanatory comment */ options b c ; /* more expanatory comments */ options d ; /* reason for this totally bizarre choice of option */ options e ; /* here we CYA a whole bunch :-) */

If your OPTIONS and GOPTIONS have specific values for networks, printers, drivers, OSsa, etc., then you can also use the comment areas to indicate alternatives under other systemata, or prior usage, or what the boss wants to see...

I typically use version #1. My current boss puts up with a lot from me. :-) :-)

David -- David L. Cassell mathematical statistician Design Pathways 3115 NW Norwood Pl. Corvallis OR 97330

_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!

Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SAS-L page