On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Sven Schreiber wrote:
> What do you think of calling the command "dynpanel" instead? Seems more
> self-explanatory to me (but of course it's not a big issue). And while I
> myself have no pressing need for orth. deviations, removing
> functionality from gretl strikes me as suboptimal in terms of marketing
> purposes for the upcoming gretl 2.0.
No big deal, actually I quite like it. As for orthogonal deviations...
believe me, it's tricky, very tricky. It's going to take a big effort to
convince me it's worth doing. (I have the feeling Allin is with me on
this.)
Yes. And note that we're not actually removing functionality,
we're just not adding it in that particular dimension. You still
have "arbond", which does orthogonal deviations for the models
within its scope. (The syntax of dpanel/dynpanel is not identical
to that of arbond, and I don't see any need to remove arbond.
Since it does what it does OK, that would seem to me gratuitous
backward incompatibility.)
Allin