I'm not sure if I get the discussion under the label CTABLES here: why should "production jobs" replace CTABLES?
Or is it just that there are 3 open topics by now 1. CTABLES 2. Production jobs 3. Reading .spv files and the discussion is on which to focus time and energy? Anybody give me a hint, please. Matthias Matthias Fäth Im Mediapark 12 50670 Köln t: 0221-2907973 m: 0171-9832175 e: [email protected] 2015-11-08 8:25 GMT+01:00 Ben Pfaff <[email protected]>: > On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 01:36:01AM +0000, Charles Johnson wrote: > > > Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2015 17:03:01 -0800 > > > From: [email protected] > > > To: [email protected] > > > CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: CTABLES > > > > > > I've done a lot of the work needed to figure out the format of SPV > > > files. I'm working on publishing a format specification. Then I'll > > > work on implementing a reader for it. > > > > That is great news. If you need more files of type SPV/SPO could ask > > another topic of discussion. > > At some point I'll need some more to answer a few lingering questions, > but I can already extract all of the important content. > > > > Would it be useful to add support for SPSS production job files? That > > > would not be hard (much easier than SPV files or CTABLES). I'd need a > > > bunch of examples of the format. > > > > From my point of view, production jobs are very useful to automate > > lengthy and complex processes that are made recurrently. As PSPP add > > more commands, the more useful they will be in the future. > > OK. >
_______________________________________________ Pspp-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-users
