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 (June 2006, week 4)Back to main SAS-L pageJoin or leave SAS-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:   Wed, 28 Jun 2006 10:48:10 -0400
Reply-To:   Phil Rack <philrack@MINEQUEST.COM>
Sender:   "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:   Phil Rack <philrack@MINEQUEST.COM>
Subject:   Re: SAS 8 vs. 9 incompatibility
Comments:   To: Jim Groeneveld <jim2stat@YAHOO.CO.UK>
In-Reply-To:   <>
Content-Type:   text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I get:

MisMis=. MisMis0=. MisMis1=.

I'm using SAS V8.02 TS Level 020M0 on Windows XP.


Phil Rack

-----Original Message----- From: Jim Groeneveld [mailto:jim2stat@YAHOO.CO.UK] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:13 AM To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: SAS 8 vs. 9 incompatibility

Hi friends,

Run the following test program in both SAS vs. 8 and SAS vs. 9 if you can and have a look at the difference.

DATA _NULL_; MisMis = . EQ -.; * -. is not the missing value ._; MisMis0 = 0 * (. EQ -.); * and neither the Morse code for N; MisMis1 = 1 * (. EQ -.); * it is: minus the missing value .; PUT (_ALL_)(=); RUN;

SAS vs. 8 yields: MISMIS=1 MISMIS0=. MISMIS1=. while SAS vs. 9 yields: MISMIS=1 MISMIS0=0 MISMIS1=1

You could question the meaning of a negative missing value, but given the first value I think SAS vs. 9 is correct with the two other values and SAS vs. 8 is not.

Where I work now (on secondment) they changed from SAS 8 to SAS 9 today.

Regards - Jim. -- Jim Groeneveld, Netherlands Statistician, SAS consultant

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