Stata The Stata listserver
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

RE: st: question about gettoken and file

From   "Nick Cox" <>
To   <>
Subject   RE: st: question about gettoken and file
Date   Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:02:19 -0000

Edwin Leuven

> > 2. It would mean that to parse command lines
> > properly Stata would have to peek inside the
> > command being called to see how that command wants to
> > treat its input. Without exaggeration, this would
> > violate the whole way Stata is constructed
> > in terms of division of responsibilities.
> "violate the whole way..." seems a bit melodramatic for 
> describing a small 
> addition to the parser
> but when we talk about changing -list- and adding useless 
> separators to the 
> output, now that violates the whole way stata *used to be* 
> constructed

Melodramatic or not, I really do want to underline 
that small though your suggestion may 
seem, it would imply a fundamental change 
in how Stata operates, and one that is on a 
quite different level from the cosmetics of 

David Kantor's suggestion 

> It seems to me that what you want is for 
> the calling environment -- not the 
> called ado -- to dictate whether to prevent 
> substitution.  (It there 
> already something like that?)  Suppose there 
> were a -nosubst- command 
> prefix.  Then you would call myado thus:

>  nosubst myado [...other elements and options...]

> And there would be nothing special about how 
> myado was written.

is closer to Stata philosophy. Its usefulness 
and practicality do seem open to discussion. 


*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index