I also prefer the old indexation-style even though I understand your argument of "a[1] = 0" (with a single index), Allin. But I am in line with Sven that it is better to have the same approach for alpha and beta restriction (CI relation number as the leading index).
Also the new indexation would affect all our scripts which we have written yet. ;-) Artur Am 11.01.2011 15:52, schrieb Allin Cottrell: > On Tue, 11 Jan 2011, Sven Schreiber wrote: > >> I'm not sure [gretl's previous indexation of \alpha >> restrictions] was a bug. Of course it's all just a matter of >> convention, but given that for beta-indexing in this case we >> also had the CI relation number as the leading index, there's a >> case to do that for alpha, too, which was the old behavior. > OK, maybe I was wrong. We could revert my change and add an > explicit note to the manual regarding the indexation convention > used. Anyone else have thoughts on this? > > Part of my motivation for the switch was that if you give a > restriction such as "a[1] = 0" (with a single index) this means > that all EC coefficients in equation 1 are restricted to zero, or > variable 1 is weakly exogenous. And it seemed more intuitive that > if you give just one index it should be read as the leading one, > not the trailing one. However, I take your point that this is a > matter of convention; all that really matters is that the manual > is clear on what we're doing. > > (Either way, I don't want to mess with our existing \beta > indexation at this point.) > > Allin > _______________________________________________ > Gretl-users mailing list > Gretl-users(a)lists.wfu.edu > http://lists.wfu.edu/mailman/listinfo/gretl-users
