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.
Comments: To: "Fehd, Ronald J. (CDC/CCHIS/NCPHI)" <rjf2@cdc.gov>
In-Reply-To:  <2C6B65AAC3623140922DE580669C456A03B7A7E2@LTA3VS001.ees.hhs.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Jan 15, 2008 10:55 AM, Fehd, Ronald J. (CDC/CCHIS/NCPHI)
<rjf2@cdc.gov> wrote:
> 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.

>
> hth
> Ron
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: data _null_, [mailto:datanull@gmail.com]
> > 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.
>