|Date: ||Wed, 30 May 2012 19:40:43 +0000|
|Reply-To: ||Chris Hemedinger <Chris.Hemedinger@SAS.COM>|
|Sender: ||"SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>|
|From: ||Chris Hemedinger <Chris.Hemedinger@SAS.COM>|
|Subject: ||Re: one pdf report is missing|
|Content-Type: ||text/plain; charset="utf-8"|
I did not intend to besmirch the good name of the COUNTW function.
I meant the use of COUNTW wasn't reliable for the example, because some of the distinct values -- in this case -- contain multiple words.
From: Quentin McMullen [mailto:qmcmullen.sas@GMAIL.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:21 PM
To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU; Chris Hemedinger
Subject: Re: one pdf report is missing
On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:56:13 +0000, Chris Hemedinger
<Chris.Hemedinger@SAS.COM> wrote in part:
>The COUNTW approach of counting the distinct values might not be reliable.
Can someone elaborate on when COUNTW may not be reliable?
Chris's comment reminded me of reading on Roland's site a while back, the
statement that "This macro was updated at some time to use the countw()
function but it was found that in rare circumstances it could return a zero
value in a form such as 1.4567E-147 which although equal to zero from a
numeric accuracy point of view, is not equal to the actual â€œ0â€ expected...."
But it's not clear to me which settings could lead a COUNTW approach to be