On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 03:44:36PM +0000, John Darrington wrote: > Some conclusions I have come to over the last week. > > * We should abandon the constraint that CORRELATIONS and anova should use a > common implementation of covariance matrix. This is largely because > CORRELATIONS > does pairwise treatment of missing values. This greatly complicates the > implementation. On the other hand CORRELATIONS doesn't use categorical > variables. I can't think of any scenario where Anova would sensibly want a > pairwise treatment of missing values in its covariance matrix, and > combining > pairwise missing values and categorical variables seems like an > insurmountable > task.
Does GLM handle pairwise missing values with categorical data? I don't have manual. > * We really need to take things one step at a time, rather than biting off > a fully featured GLM. So my suggestion is that we ignore interactions for > the > time being, and start off with a factorial anova capability - once it's > thoroughly tested we can think about interactions. I think this is a good idea. I haven't been working on the syntax for GLM lately, though, because of work. If someone wants to write the code before I do, please do. -Jason _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
