Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:59:46 +0000
Reply-To: iw1junk@COMCAST.NET
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: Ian Whitlock <iw1junk@COMCAST.NET>
Subject: Re: two-variable deduplication problem
Data _null_,
No, I thought I might as well have just waited for you. I liked your
structure better with no DO-block, so that bothered me.
I have the DEFINEDATA function because I copied code without much thought
since I don't work hard enough. (I doubt if DEFINEDATA added that much time
to the run.) That also explains my H's.
Perhaps including the HASHEXP: parameter would have been helpful for more
realistic situations, but Paul's data didn't seem to require it.
Ian Whitlock
================
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:23:54 -0400
Reply-To: "data _null_;" <datanull@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion"
From: "data _null_;" <datanull@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: two-variable deduplication problem
Comments: To: iw1junk@comcast.net
In-Reply-To:
<062020071448.21041.46793E480008C70A00005231220588617205029A06CE9907@comcas
t.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
You might think I copied your program. I did not. Interesting we both chose
H1 and H2 as names for the hashes.
We did, I believe, each of us include an unnecessary bit.
I include, hash(ordered:'a') which has no effect. You include, defineData()
which while doing no harm has no benefit that I can see.
On 6/20/07, Ian Whitlock <iw1junk@comcast.net> wrote:
<SNIP>
