[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]
RE: st: Naming convention, Ideas?
Thank you Nick(s)! I hadn't thought of the colon approach or the major minor subcommand route. And one module certainly *is* easier to maintain, document, and support.
I am glad I posted for a query I thought might seem trivial.
> Maybe something that works off the notion of "generalized."
> One option would be to use the prefix approach, to create a
> syntax like:
> . genmanip : merge ...
> . genmanip : append ...
> and so on. Then you have only one .ado file to maintain, easily
> allowing options that apply to your command (distinct from the
> append, merge, etc. options), etc.
> See -help _on_colon_parse- for a Stata command that helps
> parsing that syntax.
> I'm not sure -genmanip- is a great name, but something like that?
> --Nick Winter
> At 10:10 AM 3/22/2006, you wrote:
> >I am looking into writing a suite of wrapper data management
> >commands around merge, mmerge, append, joinby, and cross that can
> >either take a stata data file, gzip compressed data file or simply a
> >comma or tab delimited text file as the -using- argument, e.g.
> ><cmd_name> using *.dta | *.dta.gz | *.dgz | *.txt | *.cvs [, * ].
> >Two questions:
> >1) Any ideas w/ regard to a consistent naming convention that could
> >be used? as I'd like to get it right the first time. I am not very
> >fond of using an integer as a suffix a la cf2, cf3 for various
> >reasons (e.g not very informative, unclear if integers imply
> >incremental functionality, can conflict with others' names). So far
> >I thought of:
> >- mmergeplus, appendplus, joinbyplus (but rather long)
> >- aappend, jjoinby, (but look like typos, besides mmerge
> already exists)
> >2) Would anyone find these useful, i.e. should they be posted on SSC?
* For searches and help try: