Re: CTABLES

[Matthias Faeth]

ok. That means for me, that we should abort the request for CTABLES until the SPV issue is solved.

1. Has anybody a different opinion?

2. Ben, do you have any idea about the time needed so that we do not rise the issue with CTABLES again and again?

3. Maybe Frans idea about implementing !Macros could serve as a workaround. I think that might be worthwhile to discuss. Any opinions on that?

Matthias Fäth
Im Mediapark 12
50670 Köln
t: 0221-2907973
m: 0171-9832175
e: address@hidden

2015-11-09 16:06 GMT+01:00 Ben Pfaff <address@hidden>:

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 10:28:30AM +0100, Matthias Faeth wrote:
> Thanks for the comprehensive explanation why CTABLES depend on the ability
> to read SPV files. Do I understand correctly that this dependency comes
> only from the pivot-function in the SPV file - meaning that you doubleclick
> on a table to change pages?
>
> I mean by that the following: The syntax of CTABLES is:
> "CTABLES downvariable BY acrossvariable BY pagevariable"
> Pages are shown in the SPV file only by doubleclicking and choosing another
> page.
>
> The function is a pain anyway because it is uncomfortable and also (at
> least for me) not working under all circumstances. So I can confirm Alans
> arguments on this although I have no idea why rendering a new page is not
> always working.
>
> To come back to the topic of implementing CTABLES:
> 1. Can we avoid the dependency on understanding SPV if we strip the CTABLES
> command of the page function? So to support only 2 dimensions in the
> output? This is probably what most users need.

Pivot tables are a lot more than just pages, and CTABLES is pretty tied
up with the pivot functionality.

> 2. Or do you think that is not worth to do, because once the SPV issue is
> solved the whole CTABLES output would have to be reprogrammed? Or are there
> other functions of the CTABLES command (like plots or graphs) that depend
> on the SPV issue, too?

This may be an issue, too, although I doubt that plots or graphs would
be in a first draft of the CTABLES functionality.

> 3. As I do not have any knowledge about TABLES: does TABLES have the same
> dependencies on pivot and SPV? Would it be a solution to come back to the
> proposal of ftr and Frans to opt for TABLES instead of CTABLES?

I haven't studied TABLES in the way I have CTABLES.  I suspect that
users are more interested in the latter, because it's come up again and
again over the last few years, whereas the former has hardly been
mentioned.