Re: [Gretl-devel] Series Creation: An important issue
On 03/22/2012 08:32 PM, Allin Cottrell wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Summers, Peter wrote:
> Off the top of my head, I think this makes sense. I can't
> think of a situation where I'd need to keep x_1 in a data
> set as a separate series if it can be generated on the fly.
I tend to agree with Peter (even though it's backward-incompatible ;-).
I seem to remember a discussion about these automatically generated
series quite some time ago, and the result was (I think) the
introduction of the little arrows/triangles which can be toggled on/off
to show or hide the created lags. I don't remember why it wasn't decided
to discard those on-the-fly series, maybe it could be worth to search
the list archive.
It does make good sense in the context of some sort of monte
carlo study or other repetitive exercise. But in that case you
could define the lags ahead of time and refer to them by their
series names rather than using the "x(-p)" notation.
Absolutely. For the same reason I have always felt a bit uneasy about
the 'lags' command as well (and 'diff' also, I guess). The names of the
created series were a little difficult to predict (e.g. because of name
truncation), so I think it's better to recommend that script authors
explicitly declare the needed series, including their names.
cheers,
sven