Stata The Stata listserver
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

RE: st: more bizarre missing observations


From   "Nick Cox" <[email protected]>
To   <[email protected]>
Subject   RE: st: more bizarre missing observations
Date   Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:17:47 +0100

David Kantor
 
> Another issue to consider is, do you use Stata 8 or an 
> earlier edition?  If 
> you have Stata 8, then to test canter==. is to seek a 
> specific missing 
> value: .   But there are others: .a, .b, .c, etc..  If you 
> want to get all 
> missing values, then you should test...
>   missing(canter)
> or, equivalently,
>   mi(canter)
> or, equivalently,
>   canter <.

The last is a typo. 

canter < . 

is true for non-missings. 

canter >= . 

is true for missings. While we're on the subject, 
note that mi(canter) would catch the case when 
canter was a string missing, but canter == . or 
canter >= . would then be illegal. 
 

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/



© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index