Re: [Gretl-devel] missing() and ok()
Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti schrieb:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Sven Schreiber wrote:
>>
>> For ok() with a list argument the return value is unambiguous:
>> it's a series with 1s for observations where no values are
>> missing, 0s otherwise. With missing() it's not so clear what it
>> should return if given a list: 1s for all missing, or for any
>> missing?
>>
Actually, there could be some scope for allowing list arguments in
missing(): if we had that missing(X) returns 1 when all members of X are
missing, we'd cover all possibilities:
ok(X) = 1 -> none missing
ok(X) = 0 -> some missing (could be all)
missing(X) = 1 -> all missing
missing(X) = 0 -> some ok (could be all)
just for clarification: strictly speaking you mean something like
ok(X)[i] = 1, and so forth, right?
I find Jack's proposal interesting, but until I see a use case where it
has advantages I prefer my own suggestion because I find it more
intuitive (as I said before).
cheers,
sven