Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:16:35 -0600
Reply-To: "data _null_," <datanull@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: "data _null_," <datanull@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Question on Do-Whitlock (DOW) loop.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Jan 15, 2008 10:55 AM, Fehd, Ronald J. (CDC/CCHIS/NCPHI)
> I provided these test programs
> in response to Ian's note that one shouldn't show bad or slow code
This is not apparent from your post.
> the programs show that the do until(EndoFile) wrapper
> does not speed up the processing
> at least in this test case.
If you say so. I have a hard time summarizing and interpreting all the times.
> I use do until(EndoFile) all the time to differentiate
> the compile processing of the data structure
> from the execution.
It seems you still miss the point, as I understand it. The outer loop
is neither needed nor desired in the case of one group in one summary
observation out. I guess I just don't understand why you need to
differentiate, all the time.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: data _null_, [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:29 AM
> > To: Fehd, Ronald J. (CDC/CCHIS/NCPHI)
> > Cc: SAS-L@listserv.uga.edu
> > Subject: Re: Question on Do-Whitlock (DOW) loop.
> > I fail to see how this program relates to IW's argument about
> > enclosing DO UNTIL(LAST.byvar) in DO UNTIL(EOF);
> > Assuming that the first published reference is the 1983 SUGI paper by
> > DH. Why was DO UNTIL(LAST.byvar) never offered as a solution to a
> > question on SAS-L before IWs post in 2000. I tried searching via
> > Google groups and found nothing. But the fact that I did not find it
> > means little, my search may have been flawed.