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

From |
"Annelies Vos" <a.vos@erasmusmc.nl> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: multiple )))brackets, is there a more efficient way? |

Date |
Tue, 25 May 2004 09:47:09 +0200 (MEST) |

Thanks Ulrich, I liked the cond () solution because I didn't know this one... This seems much more efficient. Annelies > I don't know why you like the solution with cond(), but I prefer a > solution > with -inlist()- or -inrange()- for tasks like this this. With inlist() > your > your code-snippet might be coded like this: > > gen byte origin = 7 if nation == 3 > replace origin = 10 if inlist(nation,8,12,69,139,141) > replace origin = 8 if inlist(nation,14,82) > ... > > Others might propose a solution with -recode- but thats a matter of taste. > In any case: see -help inlist- or -help recode- for more. > > Annelies Vos wrote: >> Dear all, >> in the FAQs I found the following very useful recommendation: >> instead of: >> . generate byte a = 1 if y <= 20 >> . replace a = 2 if y > 20 & y <= 30 >> . replace a = 3 if y > 30 & y <= 40 >> . replace a = 4 if y > 40 & y <. >> >> do the following: >> >> . #delim ; >> . generate byte a = >> cond(y<=20, 1, >> cond(y<=30, 2, >> cond(y<=40, 3, >> cond(y<., 4, >> . )))); >> >> However, the variable I want to use it for (nationality) has many >> values (every country in the world), which should be recoded into >> countrygroups. I don't really like the idea of having to count the >> number of "opening brackets": "(" , to know with how many "closing >> brackets": ")" I should end. Is there any easier solution for this? >> >> to explain a piece of my syntax: >> > #delim; >> > generate byte origin = >> > cond(natio==3, 7, >> > cond(natio==8, 10, >> > cond(natio==12, 10, >> > cond(natio==14, 8, >> > cond(natio==28, -9, >> > cond(natio==54, 6, >> > cond(natio==69, 10, >> > cond(natio==82, 8, >> > cond(natio==139, 10, >> > cond(natio==141, 10, >> >> ...etcetera >> >> ...which I would like to end on another way than: >> > . )))))))))) > > many regards > uli > > > -- > kohler@wz-berlin.de > +49 (030) 25491-361 > > > * > * 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/ > * * 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/

**References**:**st: RE: common prefix to all variables***From:*"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

**st: multiple )))brackets, is there a more efficient way?***From:*"Annelies Vos" <a.vos@erasmusmc.nl>

**Re: st: multiple )))brackets, is there a more efficient way?***From:*Ulrich Kohler <kohler@wz-berlin.de>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: multiple )))brackets, is there a more efficient way?** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: panel data sets based on complex survey design** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: multiple )))brackets, is there a more efficient way?** - Next by thread:
**st: Re: multiple )))brackets, is there a more efficient way?** - Index(es):

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