-- Nick Cox writes
> 4. Declaring this behaviour now to be a bug, or at least a
misfeature,
> would be a major change in Stata. Goodness knows how many scripts,
> programs and understandings would be broken by such a change, even
> under version control.
-- "Steichen, Thomas J." wrote:
> I suspect StataCorp's programmers could minimize the impact.
> However, even if they could not implement the change without
> breaking some of my code, I'd rather pay the price of rewriting
> code than continue risking a bad analysis.
Problem is that it is not just that your code that will be broken but
that virtually every .do and .ado file ever written will need to be
checked. This leads to two considerations:
1) Such a change would be a huge investment by StataCorp, which I think
is much better spent in other areas.
2) For a very long time the "risk of bad analysis" will actually
greatly increase due to the huge amount of user writen .ado, .do files
and old habits that have not been adapted to the new convention of
dealing with missing values.
-- Maarten
-----------------------------------------
Maarten L. Buis
Department of Social Research Methodology
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Boelelaan 1081
1081 HV Amsterdam
The Netherlands
visiting address:
Buitenveldertselaan 3 (Metropolitan), room Z434
+31 20 5986715
http://home.fsw.vu.nl/m.buis/
-----------------------------------------
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
*
* 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/
