Date:         Fri, 11 Jul 2003 04:33:14 +0000
Reply-To:     sashole@bellsouth.net
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Paul Dorfman <paul_dorfman@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: $CHARw. format is identical to the $w. format
Comments: To: RHOADSM1@WESTAT.COM
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

Mike,

That $w. informat is different from $w. format in what it does has long been
a common knowledge. But it has also been quite a common place (if not
somewhat both logical and surprising) that the brightest and most
experienced SAS gurus like youself sometimes get caught by this sort of
s..tuff, I guess Ian being the only known exception. Perhaps the SAS
rational behind the difference is that the character informat interprets the
input byte stream according to a set of rules, actually much more involved
that just trimming the leading blanks, e.g.:

"The $w. informat trims leading blanks and left aligns the values before
storing the text. In addition, if a field contains only blanks and a single
period, $w. converts the period to a blank because it interprets the period
as a missing value. The $w. informat treats two or more periods in a field
as character data."

Heck, one has to beware what is hidden behind the apparently simplistic $w.
In contrast, $w. format interprets nothing at all. It, just like $char.,
simply tells SAS "show as is".

Kind regards,
================
Paul M. Dorfman
Jacksonville, FL
================





>From: Mike Rhoads <RHOADSM1@WESTAT.COM>
>Reply-To: Mike Rhoads <RHOADSM1@WESTAT.COM>
>To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>Subject: $CHARw. format is identical to the $w. format
>Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:06:53 -0400
>
>In a response earlier today to a question from Debbie Cooper, I (correctly)
>advised her to use $CHAR. rather than the $ informat in an INPUT statement
>so that she would not lose leading blanks in her data.
>
>I should have stopped there, but then "helpfully" added the following:
>"Note that the same is true on output -- $ drops leading blanks.  If you
>want to keep your carefully-retained blanks in any raw output file you are
>creating, use $CHAR4630. rather than $4630. in your PUT statement as well."
>
>My colleague Randy Herbison very politely informed me that this is NOT
>CORRECT -- when used as formats, neither $CHARw. nor $w. trims leading
>blanks on output.  (When list output is used, of course, both leading and
>trailing blanks are trimmed.)  This can be verified fairly quickly, in any
>currently available version of SAS, and the subject line of this message
>was
>in fact copied verbatim from the SAS v8 documentation.
>
>So, maybe it's not the most logical thing in the world for trimming to
>differentiate this pair when used as informats but not when used as
>formats,
>but that's the way it is.  Thanks to Randy for bringing this to my
>attention.  Perhaps I'm the only person suffering from this misconception
>(but somehow I doubt it).
>
>(Repeat after me:  "Different as informats, identical as formats ...")
>
>Mike Rhoads
>Westat
>RhoadsM1@Westat.com

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail