[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk> |

To |
<statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
st: RE: Fwd: Neverending loop.... |

Date |
Thu, 12 Dec 2002 17:55:43 -0000 |

Roberto Mura > I have been working on a do file, trying to re-rank some 60 > variables I have in my > database. My problem is that i cannot make my loop a > "smart" loop so to > speak. My re-ranking do file (is probably very inefficient > because i am > relatively new to Stata) is based on pair-wise differences > among variables. > So I need Stata to keep on performing the series of > programs I wrote until > the condition that none of these 59 differences is > negative. I have been > able to create a "dumb loop" like: local i=1 while `i' <=23 > { set more off > quietly zero quietly primo quietly secondo finale_bis > display `i' local > i=`i'+1 } > > it takes 23 iterations until all differences are >=0 > > What I would need is for stata to do something like > > while diff1<0 | diff2<0 | diff3<0 | diff4<0 | diff5<0 > |diff6<0 |diff7<0 > |diff8<0 |diff9<0 |diff10<0 | diff11<0 | diff12<0 | > diff13<0 | diff14<0 | > diff15<0 |diff16<0 |diff17<0 |diff18<0 |diff19<0 |diff20<0 > | diff21<0 | > diff22<0 | diff23<0 | diff24<0 | diff25<0 |diff26<0 > |diff27<0 |diff28<0 > |diff29<0 |diff30<0 | diff31<0 | diff32<0 | diff33<0 | > diff34<0 | diff35<0 > |diff36<0 |diff37<0 |diff38<0 |diff39<0 |diff40<0 | > diff41<0 | diff42<0 | > diff43<0 | diff44<0 | diff45<0 |diff46<0 |diff47<0 > |diff48<0 |diff49<0 > |diff50<0 | diff51<0 | diff52<0 | diff53<0 | diff54<0 | > diff55<0 |diff56<0 > |diff57<0 |diff58<0 |diff59<0 { set more off quietly zero > quietly primo > quietly secondo finale_bis } > > Now, for some reason I cannot explain myself, it works for only 9 > iterations and then it stops. So it is not "understanding" > the if condition > properly.This statement is reinforced by the fact that if I > run this when > only, say, 3 more iterations are needed it does nothing as > after the first > nine. > > The third and last way I could come up with was to > "encapsulate" that huge > if condition into a single variable...... > > by firm: gen elio=1 replace elio=0 if diff1<0 | diff2<0 | > diff3<0 | diff4<0 > | diff5<0 |diff6<0 |diff7<0 |diff8<0 |diff9<0 |diff10<0 | > diff11<0 | > diff12<0 | diff13<0 | diff14<0 | diff15<0 |diff16<0 > |diff17<0 |diff18<0 > |diff19<0 |diff20<0 | diff21<0 | diff22<0 | diff23<0 | > diff24<0 | diff25<0 > |diff26<0 |diff27<0 |diff28<0 |diff29<0 |diff30<0 | > diff31<0 | diff32<0 | > diff33<0 | diff34<0 | diff35<0 |diff36<0 |diff37<0 > |diff38<0 |diff39<0 > |diff40<0 | diff41<0 | diff42<0 | diff43<0 | diff44<0 | > diff45<0 |diff46<0 > |diff47<0 |diff48<0 |diff49<0 |diff50<0 | diff51<0 | > diff52<0 | diff53<0 | > diff54<0 | diff55<0 |diff56<0 |diff57<0 |diff58<0 |diff59<0 > > while elio ==1 { quietly drop elio set more off quietly > zero quietly primo > quietly secondo finale_bis by firm: gen elio=1 replace > elio=0 if diff1<0 | > diff2<0 | diff3<0 | diff4<0 | diff5<0 |diff6<0 |diff7<0 > |diff8<0 |diff9<0 > |diff10<0 | diff11<0 | diff12<0 | diff13<0 | diff14<0 | > diff15<0 |diff16<0 > |diff17<0 |diff18<0 |diff19<0 |diff20<0 | diff21<0 | > diff22<0 | diff23<0 | > diff24<0 | diff25<0 |diff26<0 |diff27<0 |diff28<0 |diff29<0 > |diff30<0 | > diff31<0 | diff32<0 | diff33<0 | diff34<0 | diff35<0 > |diff36<0 |diff37<0 > |diff38<0 |diff39<0 |diff40<0 | diff41<0 | diff42<0 | > diff43<0 | diff44<0 | > diff45<0 |diff46<0 |diff47<0 |diff48<0 |diff49<0 |diff50<0 > | diff51<0 | > diff52<0 | diff53<0 | diff54<0 | diff55<0 |diff56<0 > |diff57<0 |diff58<0 > |diff59<0 } > > but that's where I get into a never ending loop! finale_bis > produces the > number of differences (count if.....) still negative but, > after reaching > the zero, it keeps on performing the operations. If the diff* are variables then Stata can only interpret this as the equivalent of while diff1[1] < 0 ... { and it may well be that one bug lurks therein. The issue here is parallel to that for -if- documented at http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/lang/ifqualifier.html Apart from that, it might help you to give us the whole of your problem, not part of it. In general terms I would recommend something more like local go = 1 while `go' { do calculations check if calculations have succeeded if so { local go = 0 } } Your check should be able to include a loop over variables. In essence, you should _never_ need to type something like the compound condition used here. Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: RE: Fwd: Neverending loop....***From:*Roberto Mura <roberto.mura3@tin.it>

**References**:**st: Fwd: Neverending loop....***From:*Roberto Mura <roberto.mura3@tin.it>

- Prev by Date:
**st: RE: RE: RE: [programming] using -if- in do file** - Next by Date:
**st: -tab_chi- package now updated on SSC** - Previous by thread:
**st: Fwd: Neverending loop....** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: RE: Fwd: Neverending loop....** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2015 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |