[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]
Re: st: inline mata vs mo/mlib?
At 11:40 10/08/2005, Kit wrote:
Presumably the downside is the time taken to compile the Mata functions
every time the .ado is called (or, as you say, every session in which the
.ado is called at least once). I don't know how "real" this problem is, or
how large a Mata library has to be before it gets "real". I personally have
used the .mlib solution up until now (plus the .mata files to keep it open
source), but am open to persuasion otherwise, if anybody knows anything I
A SSC contributor has raised an interesting question. Say that you
have an ado-file that calls one (or several) of your own mata
functions. You could place those functions in-line in the ado-file,
or you could compile them into .mo and put them into an .mlib.
is there any real downside to distributing a single ado-file
containing the mata functions inline versus distributing the .ado
and .mlib (and presumably the .mata if you want to expose the code)?
The inline code will be compiled when loaded, but once per session.
Lecturer in Medical Statistics
Department of Public Health Sciences
Division of Asthma, Allergy and Lung Biology
King's College London
5th Floor, Capital House
42 Weston Street
London SE1 3QD
Tel: 020 7848 6648 International +44 20 7848 6648
Fax: 020 7848 6620 International +44 20 7848 6620
or 020 7848 6605 International +44 20 7848 6605
Opinions expressed are those of the author, not the institution.
* For searches and help try: