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

From |
David Airey <david.airey@vanderbilt.edu> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
re: st: easy histogram |

Date |
Fri, 28 Feb 2003 20:45:28 -0600 |

David makes a good point for removing the option for -histogram-, and we willThis reply beats around the bush and doesn't explain to me why "histogram mpg, xscale(log)" would ever make sense. That is really my question; I'm ignorant of the answer.

remove the checkboxes for log scales from the easy graph dialog for

-histogram-.

However, the "full featured" dialog for -histogram- will remain the same since

both -xscale(log)- and -yscale(log)- are valid -graph twoway- options.

--Jeff

jpitblado@stata.com

Jeff's answer that histogram's option xscale is valid because it is a twoway explains why histogram inherits these options. That doesn't mean the design choice is a good one. The area under the histogram should sum to 1 when the yaxis is density, as stated in the manual. I don't think when xscale(log) is used it will (though I have not measured). If it doesn't, then the option is pointless (the option is not pointless for other graph twoway commands like scatter).

Perhaps not all daughters of the mother twoway should inherit certain twoway options?

*

* 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/

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: easy histogram** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: easy histogram** - Next by thread:
**st: RE: unconstrained maximization in stata** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |