Re: [Gretl-devel] [Gretl-users] multivariate lrvar?

On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Sven Schreiber wrote: > Am 16.04.2018 um 23:11 schrieb Allin Cottrell:

>> So, just to be explicit, the idea would then be: >> >> V = lrcovar(X)    # does de-meaning >> V = lrcovar(X, 1) # does de-meaning (more explicitly) >> V = lrcovar(X, 0) # cancels de-meaning >> >> Is this preferable to what's in place right now? Which is: > > I think I prefer this way (above; although everything is arbitrary of > course). About the meanings of 0 and 1, one reason is your "action" > indicator semantics,  and the other one is that the (X, 0) combination > could be intuitively read out as "these Xes already have mean 0 [thus > do not demean again]". > About the preferred default (of 1/action) I gave my argument above. > > If there's consensus, "somebody" please apply the change to git. I've just done so.