LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous (more recent) messageNext (less recent) messagePrevious (more recent) in topicNext (less recent) in topicPrevious (more recent) by same authorNext (less recent) by same authorPrevious page (March 2008, week 2)Back to main SAS-L pageJoin or leave SAS-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:54:53 -0700
Reply-To:     "Pardee, Roy" <pardee.r@GHC.ORG>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         "Pardee, Roy" <pardee.r@GHC.ORG>
Subject:      Strange SQL behavior on PC sas--bug?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hey All,

A collegue posted this to an internal listserv here & I suggested tapping you kind folks about it. Consider this code:

* ---------------------------- ;

data junk; x=5; run;

data no_obs; set junk (where=(x=1)); run;

proc sql _method ; select "I am a text literal" as lit, "&sysdate"d as datey format=mmddyy10., count(*) as NumObs from no_obs ;


* ---------------------------- ;

When we run that on our unix machine, the literal & macro var get processed & we get (as we expect):

lit datey NumObs ----------------------------------------- I am a text literal 03/10/2008 0

but when we run on our local PCs we get missings for the literal and the macro var expression:

lit datey NumObs ----------------------------------------- . 0

When you look at the _METHOD output, there's an extra sqxfil step on the PC output.

Is this just a matter of having different options specified on the 2 platforms? Can anybody reproduce our PC results?



Roy Pardee Research Analyst/Programmer Group Health Center For Health Studies (Cancer Research Network) (206) 287-2078 Google Talk: rpardee

Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SAS-L page