Request on the usage of .z

[himself]

Hi, wanted to inquire for some explanation on the usage of .z

I have interacted with its usage as shown in the code;

data lb1;
   length charval $200;
  set lb;
  if lborres >.z then do;
    charval=put(lborress,best.);
  end;
run;

[Kurt_Bremser · Accepted solution]

.a to .z are "special" missing values. Although they all act like "normal" missing values in calculations, they do have an order, with .z being the "greatest", so .z is greater than .a or .

Using .z as the cutoff value makes sure that any "special" missing values can't make their way into the calculation:

See

data have;
input x1;
datalines;
.
.q
100
;

data want;
set have;
if x1 > . then x2 = 1 / x1;
if x1 > .z then x3 = 1 / x1;
run;

 73         data have;
 74         input x1;
 75         datalines;
 
 NOTE: The data set WORK.HAVE has 3 observations and 1 variables.
 NOTE:  Verwendet wurde: DATA statement - (Gesamtverarbeitungszeit):
       real time           0.00 seconds
       cpu time            0.00 seconds
       
 
 79         ;
 80         
 81         data want;
 82         set have;
 83         if x1 > . then x2 = 1 / x1;
 84         if x1 > .z then x3 = 1 / x1;
 85         run;
 
 NOTE: Missing values were generated as a result of performing an operation on missing values.
       Each place is given by: (Number of times) at (Line):(Column).
       1 bei 83:23   
 NOTE: There were 3 observations read from the data set WORK.HAVE.
 NOTE: The data set WORK.WANT has 3 observations and 3 variables.

[himself]

Thanks so so much @Kurt_Bremser, for the reply and for the example provided,I now understand how this works. Many thanks

[FreelanceReinh]

In other words: For a numeric variable x the condition

x>.z

is a short way of checking for a non-missing value. This can also be coded in various other equivalent ways, e.g.,

not missing(x)

or

n(x)

Only in the absence of special missing values .a, ...,.z the condition x>. would be equivalent too, so x>.z is safer than that.

[himself]

Thanks so so much @ FreelanceReinhard, for the response