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:  <MC11-F12AR2QjRMZarv001ccf5b@mc11-f12.hotmail.com>
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!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/