| 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 |
|---|
|
| In-Reply-To: | <74227316AFB87C4687325EB8007D225A022B2C@mq-sbs.mq.local> |
|---|
| 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
Phil Rack
www.minequest.com
-----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
home.hccnet.nl/jim.groeneveld
| 
