Sorry that wasn't clear. I wrote:
_n remains defined as 1 to whatever is _N.
Please read this as a range:
_n remains defined as
1 to whatever is _N.
In American, 1 through whatever is _N.
(British doesn't have this excellent idiom.)
Or in a common notation
_n remains defined as 1,..., _N.
There is no disagreement, just that my wording
evidently wasn't clear enough.
Nick
[email protected]
Eric G. Wruck
> Hi Nick:
>
> Could you please explain your second sentence below about _n
> being defined as 1? In my new Stata 9 User's Guide (which
> arrived yesterday!) on page 148, I read
>
> "_n contains the number of the current observation."
>
> Adding to my earlier attempted explanation, I'll point out
> that Stata refers to variables such as _n as system or
> underscore variables.
>
> EGW
>
>
>
> >It is more the other way round. _n remains defined
> >as 1 to whatever is _N regardless of the sort order
> >of the data. Which observation is which is what varies.
> >The consequences are much the same, naturally.
> >
> >Adding or deleting observations will change the range
> >of _n, certainly.
*
* 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/
