Re: [Gretl-users] A question on squares()
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016, oleg_komashko(a)ukr.net wrote:
Dear Riccardo,
I didn't intended to say stata is better,
I did only mean I did not proposed
some freak self-backed oddities.
For example, list1^list construction
is useful in constructing Chow-type tests.
What I like to have is additional possibilities
to create quickly interactions of continuous
variables with group dummies.
Unfortunately, I do not know currently
how to do it in Hansl quickly since
setinfo --discrete does not work inside functions.
In most cases I try to write myself what I
wish to have in Gretl as packages.
Does your words about stata mean
I am an unwanted person by some reasons?
Of course not, don't be silly. What I wanted to say is: if you think that
stata is closer to your taste, use stata. I won't feel offended. Use stata
for the things you like stata for, use R for the things you prefer R for,
use gretl for the things you like gretl better for.
As for interactions, I find that using lists is infinitely superior and
more elegant than the "xi" mechanism. But perhaps it's just me.
Like Sven said, you can't expect others to find it reasonable to bend a
language (Hansl) to the point of contiortionism because YOU can't be
bothered to do things in more than one line of code. If "setinfo
--discrete" doesn't work inside functions (which makes sense IMO),
then set the bloody variable as discrete OUTSIDE THE BLOODY FUNCTION,
for chrissake.
-------------------------------------------------------
Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti
Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali (DiSES)
Università Politecnica delle Marche
(formerly known as Università di Ancona)
r.lucchetti(a)univpm.it
http://www2.econ.univpm.it/servizi/hpp/lucchetti
-------------------------------------------------------