10:12 a.m.
Hello,
for datasets with a lot of variables I think it would be useful if
'open' accepted a --quiet option, which would mean that the variable
names are not listed/printed.
what do you think?
thanks,
sven
1:35 p.m.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Allin Cottrell wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Sven Schreiber wrote:
> for datasets with a lot of variables I think it would be useful if 'open'
> accepted a --quiet option, which would mean that the variable names are not
> listed/printed.
>
> what do you think?
Good idea.
Even better, I'd like to have a --verbose option. That is, without options
you don't get the variable list, but you can have if you want.
Yes, Sven, this would be backward-incomaptible, but I think I can live
with it ;-)
Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti
Dipartimento di Economia
Università Politecnica delle Marche
r.lucchetti(a)univpm.it
http://www.econ.univpm.it/lucchetti
1:45 p.m.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Allin Cottrell wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Sven Schreiber wrote:
>
> > for datasets with a lot of variables I think it would be useful if
'open'
> > accepted a --quiet option, which would mean that the variable names are
> > not
> > listed/printed.
> >
> > what do you think?
>
> Good idea.
Even better, I'd like to have a --verbose option. That is,
without options you don't get the variable list, but you can
have if you want.
Yes, Sven, this would be backward-incomaptible, but I think I
can live with it ;-)
I've added a quiet option in CVS, but I'm happy to change that if
there's a consensus. Though it strikes me a verbose option would
be somewhat redundant, since
open foo --verbose
would be equivalent to
open foo
varlist
Allin.
9:31 a.m.
Am 23.06.2008 15:45, Allin Cottrell schrieb:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Allin Cottrell wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Sven Schreiber wrote:
>>
>>> for datasets with a lot of variables I think it would be useful if
'open'
>>> accepted a --quiet option, which would mean that the variable names are
>>> not
>>> listed/printed.
>>>
>>> what do you think?
>> Good idea.
> Even better, I'd like to have a --verbose option. That is,
> without options you don't get the variable list, but you can
> have if you want.
>
> Yes, Sven, this would be backward-incomaptible, but I think I
> can live with it ;-)
Well since in this case neither calculations nor results are involved I
think it's not too bad. :-)
I've added a quiet option in CVS, but I'm happy to change that if
there's a consensus. Though it strikes me a verbose option would
be somewhat redundant, since
open foo --verbose
would be equivalent to
open foo
varlist
I wasn't even aware of varlist...
So I would be slightly in favor of your synthesis:
w/o variable list:
open x.gdt
w/ variable list:
open x.gdt
varlist
The second-best choice would be:
w/o variable list:
open x.gdt --quiet
w/ variable list:
open x.gdt
-sven
4:03 p.m.
Hi All,
Just my 2 cents ($ vs € rates not counting :).
I am in favor of a "--verbose level" option, being the "--quiet"
option an alias for the lowest verbosity level.
This way I could finally have my "student" mode implemented in the
official version. I changed the code to have legends for the *, **,
***, when they appear on the P-VALUES models columns. They have
entries in the POT, and I translated but wondered why they never
shown. So I modified the code for that. Jack disagrees with this
output, but when we have the "--verbose" option everyone would be
happy.
By the way the ***, meaning "significant at 0,001 level" (or something
like that), does not have an entry in the POT, and so it is not
translated.
Bye,
Hélio
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Sven Schreiber <svetosch(a)gmx.net> wrote:
Am 23.06.2008 15:45, Allin Cottrell schrieb:
>
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Allin Cottrell wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Sven Schreiber wrote:
>>>
>>>> for datasets with a lot of variables I think it would be useful if
>>>> 'open'
>>>> accepted a --quiet option, which would mean that the variable names are
>>>> not
>>>> listed/printed.
>>>>
>>>> what do you think?
>>>
>>> Good idea.
>>
>> Even better, I'd like to have a --verbose option. That is, without
>> options you don't get the variable list, but you can have if you want.
>>
>> Yes, Sven, this would be backward-incomaptible, but I think I can live
>> with it ;-)
Well since in this case neither calculations nor results are involved I
think it's not too bad. :-)
>
> I've added a quiet option in CVS, but I'm happy to change that if
there's
> a consensus. Though it strikes me a verbose option would be somewhat
> redundant, since
>
> open foo --verbose
>
> would be equivalent to
>
> open foo
> varlist
>
I wasn't even aware of varlist...
So I would be slightly in favor of your synthesis:
w/o variable list:
open x.gdt
w/ variable list:
open x.gdt
varlist
The second-best choice would be:
w/o variable list:
open x.gdt --quiet
w/ variable list:
open x.gdt
-sven
_______________________________________________
Gretl-devel mailing list
Gretl-devel(a)lists.wfu.edu
http://lists.wfu.edu/mailman/listinfo/gretl-devel
6024
days inactive
6025
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Allin Cottrell -
Hélio Guilherme -
Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti -
Sven Schreiber