Jamie can you extend the suggestion with a series of "let" examples, that clarifies the extend. My consideration is not so much whether to add something simple, but I think we should be careful not to constantly postpone highly desired functionality such as relate or GCP functionality with logging.
regards Jens Lauritsen
On 12/16/2012 08:56 PM, epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca wrote:
Additional functionality for Manager calculations:
It will be very useful to have some more calculation possibilities as we had in .chk files. In order of priority:
- minimally, the following via the menu/drop down approach that exists:
- add/subtract an integer variable or constant to/from a date field to yield another date field
- result field = fn(source field[, source field b]) (where fn is a function as for the LET statement in .chk)
- substr for string combinations
- ideally, the ability to enter a text string that defines a calculation based on other fields (equivalent to LET statement in .chk). We should keep the functions to a limited set of those available for LET. I'm not sure what is most useful. Doing some calculation during entry is useful, as this allows for additional validity checking
- the ability to reference value labels in another project (equivalent of COMMENT LEGAL USE abc.rec)
We already have most of the old codebook for Manager with reports. It might be useful to add value labels to the Extended report. The best way to get anything further, such as actual min/max, etc is with Analysis. It doesn't make sense to add this to Manager.
Jamie
On 2012-12-16, at 8:11 AM, epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca wrote:
Other users please answer on the following questions:
1 Which aspects of the chk file functionality are still lacking with the new fixed possibilities ? Please be very specific like Thai Thanh Truc was.
2 Do we need analysis functions like codebook in EntryClient (or can one always use EpiData Analysis) ?