On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 06:58:12PM +0100, Steffen Möller wrote:
> So, "NA" indeed means like "hey, I checked but this was not found". This
> information should not be lost.
>
> An empty entry, as if from a template, does not have the same meaning.
> If NA (which is how R expects it and I found it likely to be easier to
> parse) or N/A - I would not be bother to do all these changes and would
> just leave it. Indeed, on the Excel sheet I am using N/A.
I definitely bother / veto agains renaming the now implemented 'NA' to
simply 'N/A' since there is no advantage at all. However, I can follow
the argument of Andrius that and empty string "" (not just nothing as in
our empty boilerplate) could serve the given purpose.
> * empty - nobody cared, yet
I'd prefer if this would be removed at all.
> * "N/A" or "NA" or "<N/A>" or "<NA>" the latter two I would prefer but
> do not really care,
As I said above: I care. Just stick to what we have and dont burn
developer time by renaming fun.
> @Andrius - If I do not need to be involved and if no information is
> lost, then I promise to be very happy with whatever you come up with,
> whatever this may be. The chance to have a reference named "NA", though,
> especially with all caps, that is darn close to zero and I wish you
> would invest/sink your valuable time into something else.
+1
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
