[Gretl-devel] some new gretl issues

Allin Cottrell cottrell at wfu.edu
Fri Oct 26 11:13:31 EDT 2007

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Sven Schreiber wrote:

> Allin Cottrell schrieb:
> > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Sven Schreiber wrote:
> >> Somebody said the sourceforge tool is not good, but I'd say we can
> >> always switch to something better later. (Provided that at least the sf
> >> tool has some usable export feature?)
> Let me stress the question mark here, does anybody know if the bug
> database can be exported from the sourceforge tracker in a practically
> useful way?

Hmm, I've poked around on the site, and I don't see any obvious 
option of that sort.

> >> 2) with T = 235 and 2 equ with about 20 coeffs each, gretl says it
> >> doesn't have enough dofs for autocorrelation test of order 4 (or
> >> even 1!) -- sometimes it even does that just for estimation! (maybe
> >> triggered by repeatedly checking/un-checking the robust cov option,
> >> which I did?)

OK. I think I've found and fixed the problem with that.

> >> 3) a big wishlist item or question: how to modify an existing 
> >> model instead of starting always from scratch???
> Since in the session view/model table the model is already 
> saveable, I imagine it would be possible to add the feature to 
> open the specification window in a state given by the saved 
> model?

Yes, that sounds like a good idea, but probably after 1.6.6.  Any 
suggestions for the best placement of this?  Maybe in the model 
window have an item "Revise specification" or "New specification 
based on this model" (too verbose?) -- or some such -- under the 
File or Edit menu?

> Eviews works only in session-mode (a workfile in principle being 
> a snapshot of everything, not just data), and Pcgive works only 
> in datafile mode (enhanced by the constant result log writing 
> and batch script writing which helps you replicate stuff and 
> save states). In contrast, gretl tries to support both 
> approaches, and it is difficult to get it 100% right, and 
> sometimes it causes confusion.

Granted.  I'm not even sure what counts as "100% right", though 
I'm open to suggestions as to what would be "more right" than the 
current situation.

> Since gretl already has session management, maybe it should 
> adopt the Eviews approach and enforce the use of sessions?

I wouldn't favour that personally.  _Perhaps_ there should be some 
sort of mode switch the user can set, though it would not be very 
easy to explain briefly to the user exactly what such a switch 
would do.


More information about the Gretl-devel mailing list