Re: [Gretl-devel] bug with missings, dummies (and panel?)
Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti schrieb:
In my view, NA and NaN are two very different things. As you say,
NaN*0
== NaN, by the definition of NaN. If you restrict the interpretation of
NA to "unknown numbwer (but still a number)", then NA*0==0 makes sense.
I agree!
So I think that NA and NaN are fundamentally different, and should
be
treated as such; note that we don't do this at present
exactly; instead gretl implicitly assumes always NA which is not
justified IMHO
you get NAs rather NaNs. I accept that behaviour such as this should be
fixed, although not a priority IMO.
I certainly won't argue about priorities...
On the basis of my reasoning above, I consider the first example above
wrong, with due respect to R (and octave).
Maybe; although I have to say this could mean to eventually dig further
why octave does it (does Matlab do it? why?). But it's not the main
issue here.
thanks,
sven