Re: st: Re: further version questions

[n j cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>]

Kit Baum replied to Stas Kolenikov:

I just had a private exchange this week with Rich Goldstein, who was 
bitten by this issue of having a copy of a routine in a directory that 
occluded the file downloaded by -net install-. This has nothing to do 
with whether you're accessing -gllamm- from Sophia's website, nor from 
ssc where it is mirrored: it has to do with what is on your machine. 
StataCorp decided that it would be useful (and indeed it is) to allow, 
say, an ado in PERSONAL to occlude one in PLUS. For testing, that is 
great. But it means that you have to understand the -adopath- concept.

I don't have much hope for your 'requires' concept, since it would 
depend on user programmers faithfully including and updating that info. 
Not all include revision codes in their routines (I have to push 
sometimes to get a -version- statement, without which I cannot 
categorize the routine in SSC). I think a more useful tool (which Nick 
can write in two shakes of a lamb's tail) would be a 'whereis' that 
would do the equivalent of -which- over the entire adopath: that is, in 
order of the current -adopath-, search for each instance of an ado and 
report its first lines. That would at least make it easy to see that you 
have multiple copies of a given ado on a machine.

>>> Thanks for the compliment. I can indeed tell you how to do this:

. which foo, all

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/