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

Re: st: I can't get fs to work from inside a do file

From   "Michael Blasnik" <>
To   <>
Subject   Re: st: I can't get fs to work from inside a do file
Date   Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:01:42 -0500


You didn't actually test what I suggested -- you still omitted the macro expansion quotes in the assignment. If you did:

local eenie `r(files)'

you should find a word count of 5. But Joseph Coveney's suggestion to include compound double quotes is correct and will protect against problems with quotes and spaces within the list. You should use that approach.


----- Original Message ----- From: "Gabi Huiber" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: st: I can't get fs to work from inside a do file


Thank you for replying to my post. Below is an actual copy of my Stata
results window, after the do-file with the fs command rolled to the
end without executing. Remember that we started here:

. ***************** CALL DO-FILES SPECIFIC TO EACH ${paper} HERE
. fs prototype/${paper}/*.do
local dofiles=r(files)

foreach k of local dofiles {
do "prototype/${paper}/`k'"

di "goodbye"
end of do-file

So I went to the command window and copied the fs line into it, as shown below:

. fs prototype/${paper}/*.do

Clearly, it worked. Next, I declared the local eenie:

. local eenie r(files)

Then I checked to see that it showed what I thought it would:

. di `eenie'
"" "" ""
"" "dna_step5_rep"
And it did, but look:

. local x: word count `eenie'

. di `x'

Even though `eenie' seems to have five distinct words delimited by
quotes, it only has one. The quotes are somehow embedded in it. So I
tried evaluating the r(files) expression, like in `meenie' below:

. local meenie=r(files)

. di `meenie'

Now the thing clearly looks like it's one uninterrupted word, but it's
not. Look:

. local y: word count `meenie'

. di `y'

So with the risk that it would truncate the content of the ${paper}
folder to 244 characters, using the = sign looked like a good idea at
the time. Now I will move on to trying out Joseph Coveney's syntax and
see how that works. The 244 character limitation is not binding now,
but it might be in the future. I want to avoid it if I can. This reply
was just for the entertainment of the interested parties. I think it's
at least curious how Stata looks like it does one thing, and does

Thanks again to all,

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index