allow the PUTN and PUTC functions to override the justification just as can be done with the PUT function
I believe the script could use some work to make it a bit easier to follow for people that have no experience with the application.
Hi Mickey -
The script on the wiki included screenshots and more detail about the application. This information was not included in the script uploaded to the community site. Would it have helped to have some of this additional information?
Also, in a separate community thread, I provided an annotated screenshot of the Cirrus UI to highlight certain areas of the application (palette, canvas, property sheet). Would this kind of "map" of the application screen also help?
When working through the script, I pulled it up on my second monitor, and worked my way through it. I never went back to the source wiki to take a look, as I managed my way through it( clumsily at times ).
I missed the other community thread due to an email setting I had set improperly at some point well previous to the EA1, where I was only getting an email summary once per week from the greater communities site. I think a year or more ago the community was sending me emails even though I wasn't really using it for anything, so I put it on mute .
I went looking for the annotated screenshot now, but was having problems finding it. It does sound like something that would be very helpful. One idea might be to put the annotated screenshot of the UI at the start of the script, as an introduction. I'd also pull in any and all screenshots from the Wiki into the script, so it is one stop shopping for the end users.
Here is the "Cirrus Visual Overview" again. I cannot find it, either!
I think that would be helpful, the terminology always takes some getting used to when you are using a new product.
This has been implemented with SAS9.4, see SAS(R) 9.4 Functions and CALL Routines: Reference
thank you Bruno
That's done and works for me!
more useful, would be support in INPUTN() for the ? and ?? modifiers
do I have to raise a new ballot idea?
There are no messages in the log when you use the INPUTN function and the value does not match the informat
My concern was to reduce the WARNING and NOTE that appear when for example a date is not valid for int INPUTN() function.
29 %PUT result=%sysfunc( inputn( 31Jan14, date7 ), date11 );
30 %PUT result=%sysfunc( inputn( 32Jan14, date7 ), date11 );
WARNING: Argument 1 to function INPUTN referenced by the %SYSFUNC or %QSYSFUNC macro function is out of range.
NOTE: Mathematical operations could not be performed during %SYSFUNC function execution. The result of the operations have been set to a missing value.
With the INPUT() function we can suppress those messages using the ? or ?? modifiers but they are invalid for INPUTN()
34 %PUT result=%sysfunc( inputn( 31Jan14, ?? date7 ), date11 );
WARNING: Argument 2 to function INPUTN referenced by the %SYSFUNC or %QSYSFUNC macro function is out of range.
Thanks for clarification. Yes in this case I guess it does make sense to open a ballot entry.
with the following technique you can avoid a warning message, but one still gets some message in the log
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.