Prof Brian Ripley wrote: > >>From the messages you get I do not believe this is a recent version of read.spss (message 2 no longer appears)...
I am sorry you are right here, I was using an outdated version of foreign. I have updated my packages. My current version is now R version 2.7.1 (2008-06-23) with foreign_0.8-28. I have experimented importing some spss datafiles, mostly from the sample data files that are included with SPSS. Most of these files do not generate any warnings, so I am not sure this is related to the missingness. However, the problem of read.spss() not returning any information on missingness persists in all of these datafiles. Prof Brian Ripley wrote: > > All that is 'harmfull' is that you are not told that value labels NA and > NAP were to be regarded as 'missing' in SPSS. We've no idea whether if > would be a more or less egregious choice to map them to R's NA, and > certainly are not in a position to assert 'far less harmfull' in general. Of course the 'least harmfull' behavior of the function completely depends on the data and the user's intentions. I was explicitly suggesting making the mapping of missing values to <NA>'s optional, to give users who consider this appropriate, the option to replace these missings. I do not claim this to be the best default behavior, just a very useful feature. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/importing-explicitly-declared-missing-values-in-read.spss-%28foreign%29-tp18776776p18809176.html Sent from the R devel mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
