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

From |
"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk> |

To |
<statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
RE: st: a question about local macro |

Date |
Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:08:48 -0000 |

Radu is correct. And there is a way round it. You can use -c_local-. -c_local- is not documented; it is not even "undocumented" (-help undocumented-). So, how does anyone outside StataCorp know about it? What happens is this: after a long period of Stata use in which you have done well, Stata will speak to you: "Greetings! You have reached the seventh level of Stata, and I name you Statafriend. You will now be initiated into seven Stata secrets. The first is -c_local-." and so forth, but the rest of it is probably not of interest. Anyway, . c_local IC "IC412 IC413" will do what you want. Think of it as inserting the named local in the calling program's namespace. Often you will want a double allocation: . local IC "IC412 IC413" . c_local IC "IC412 IC413" Now be warned: 1. -c_local- flouts much computing thinking and would often be regarded as very bad programming space. 2. That is not just a purist sense of high and good style. -c_local- can mess up your programs. If, and only if, you understand that and how it causes problems, you should feel free to use it. (Mind you, globals can do harm as well!) Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk Radu Ban > this is because the local macro is defined in the do-file and NOT in > the current Stata session. so when you try to access the local macro > from the Stata session, Stata doesn't have anything stored in `IC', > hence it evaluates to empty. Jian Zhang > > I have a question about the local macro. I could not > figure out why and > > how to get around it. Hope that you can help me out. > > > > Here is the question. In my do file, I have two commands > as follows: > > > > local IC="IC412 IC413" > > reg y `IC' > > > > The question is that when I run the two commands together > > it works. But I found that if I then re-run the second > command without > > running the first command, I thought it should give the > same results > > since i have already defined the local macro, so I do not need to > > redefine it. It turns out that this time stata treated > `IC' as empty. > > That means if I want to run the second command, i always > need to run the > > two commands together. Am I correct? Any explanations? Is > there anyway > > to get around this? * * 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: a question about local macro***From:*Radu Ban <raduban@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**RE: st: RE: P-value** - Next by Date:
**st: absolute values of matrix elements [stata 8]** - Previous by thread:
**st: a question about local macro** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: a question about local macro** - Index(es):

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