Date:         Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:38:05 -0700
Reply-To:     David L Cassell <davidlcassell@MSN.COM>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         David L Cassell <davidlcassell@MSN.COM>
Subject:      Re: Saving 3 lines of array declaration/So Concise that it
              becomes Scary/proc compare valid?
In-Reply-To:  <200510251910.j9PHZbiv020056@mailgw.cc.uga.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

toby989@HOTPOP.COM wrote:
>Refering to my post on Oct 20, I was looking for a more simple way for
>my code, got a suggestion (relating to the if statement) and implemented
>it the following way.
>
>data ps2004dic;
>set psdata.ps2004;
>array q q:;
>do over q;
>if q~=. then q=0<q<3;
>end;
>run;
>
>Now I experimented some more and found an very concise code that seems
>almost scary to me. Is following code a valid substitution for the above
>one - omitting an explicit array declaration?
>
>data ps2004dic;
>set psdata.ps2004;
>if q: ~=. then q: = 0< q: <3;
>run;
>
>I run a proc compare on both of the resulting datasets and it shows they
>are exactly the same, however, are there loopholes that proc compare
>cannot detect?

This didn't work for me either.

Are you *sure* this ran for you?  Can you show us the log where it says that
the data step ran and created the file you were expecting?

Otherwise, you ran the code, it failed to create the new data set, and it
kept
the *previous* copy of this file for your use.  That file matched up with
your
test file, and you found no differences.  But it wasn't created using this
step.
That's my guess, anyway.

Now if you were programming in Perl or APL, I might expect some sort of
resultant from this.

HTH,
David
--
David L. Cassell
mathematical statistician
Design Pathways
3115 NW Norwood Pl.
Corvallis OR 97330

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/