<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Odd category rule behaviour in SAS Data Science</title>
    <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/SAS-Data-Science/Odd-category-rule-behaviour/m-p/558486#M10020</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Noticed this interesting behaviour today. I'm trying to match the following category rule:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;(ORDDIST_8,"get","statement","got","for","let")&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Excuse the nonsense - it was stripped down to try and make sense of why the rule wouldn't return a match.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;So the following text matches:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;get statement for but got for let&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;But not this:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;get statement for but got for let for&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Is there any logical reason the additional "for" at the end of the sentence would stop the rule from returning a match?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Cheers&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2019 22:00:35 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>hemi</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-05-13T22:00:35Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Odd category rule behaviour</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/SAS-Data-Science/Odd-category-rule-behaviour/m-p/558486#M10020</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Noticed this interesting behaviour today. I'm trying to match the following category rule:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;(ORDDIST_8,"get","statement","got","for","let")&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Excuse the nonsense - it was stripped down to try and make sense of why the rule wouldn't return a match.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;So the following text matches:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;get statement for but got for let&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;But not this:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;get statement for but got for let for&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Is there any logical reason the additional "for" at the end of the sentence would stop the rule from returning a match?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Cheers&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2019 22:00:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/SAS-Data-Science/Odd-category-rule-behaviour/m-p/558486#M10020</guid>
      <dc:creator>hemi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-05-13T22:00:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

