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

From |
"Austin Nichols" <austinnichols@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: advance a -foreach- loop? |

Date |
Wed, 14 May 2008 10:11:51 -0400 |

Jeph Herrin <junk@spandrel.net> : Stata/SE can put 1,081,511 characters in a local macro, so that constraint may not be binding. To be clear, when I proposed moving the groups of variables into a separate macro and dealing with the groups in a separate loop, I took it as read that you had a method for constructing such groups, since you wrote "I'd like to handle all the variables in that particular group... I can do this, but then I need to advance the -foreach-" The reason for moving the groups of variables into a separate macro and dealing with the groups in a separate loop is: suppose for any given variable v, you can identify a group of 6 related variables m_v (including v itself) and process all 6 inside the loop. When you reach the next variable in group m_v, you will repeat this process, making the whole thing take 6 times as long as it should. OTOH, the construction of a long local macro containing groups should take a negligible amount of time, and then the groups can be looped over one by one. On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Jeph Herrin <junk@spandrel.net> wrote: > > Austin, Nick, thanks for the replies. > > I think I should have been more specific about my list > of variables. I am processing several input files with this, > and in each all I know about the variables of interest is that > they have a given prefix. So in practice > > local biglist = "prfx_*" > > Ie, I oversimplified in my example; the variables are actually > > prfx_payor_1 > prfx_payor_2 > prfx_payor_3 > ... etc > > There are hundreds of variables in each file, and it would be far > more time consuming to go through and group them, especially as > I will be rerunning this routinely on files that someone else is > producing, with the variables changing potentially each time. > > Also, because of the number of variables, I think expanding into > a macro and then indexing over the words will not work because of > the limit on macro length (right?). > > However, I may have to next my loop inside another, and do some > preprocessing of -biglist- first. > > thanks, > Jeph > > > > Austin Nichols wrote: >> >> Jeph Herrin <junk@spandrel.net>: >> Can you not use -else- here? I.e. >> foreach V of varlist `biglist' { >> gettype(`V') >> if `type'=="M" { >> <do stuff> >> } >> else { >> <do other stuff> >> } >> } >> >> If you did want to reference variables by their number, and did -keep >> `biglist'- first, you can refer to word `i' of `biglist' to get the >> ith variable (see "Macro extended functions for parsing" in help >> extended_fcn). >> >> BTW, it might be more efficient to move the type "M" variables into a >> separate macro to process separately, depending on how you are >> choosing to handle all the variables in a particular group, e.g. >> payor_1-payor_6. E.g. >> >> foreach V of varlist `biglist' { >> gettype(`V') >> if `type'=="M" { >> <make list of variables related to `V' e.g. payor_1-payor_6> >> <and put the list in local `thislist' > >> loc mlist `" `mlist' "`thislist'" "' >> } >> else { >> <do other stuff> >> } >> } >> foreach V of varlist `mlist' { >> <now operate on each group of related vars> >> } >> >> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Jeph Herrin <junk@spandrel.net> wrote: >>> >>> I have hundreds of variables that I need to loop through >>> and process. Some of them are grouped together because they >>> represent different options that are not mutually exclusive; >>> for example, "Insurance type: check all that apply:" has >>> results stored in: >>> >>> payor_1 >>> payor_2 >>> payor_3 >>> payor_4 >>> payor_5 >>> payor_6 >>> >>> >>> I have a datum -type- associated with each that tells me it is part of a >>> "multiselect" (sic) question, so when I loop through all my variables: >>> >>> foreach V of varlist `biglist' { >>> gettype(`V') >>> if `type'=="M" { >>> <do stuff> >>> } >>> . >>> . >>> . >>> } >>> >>> The ... handles every other types of variable. However, when I >>> <do stuff> I'd like to handle all the variables in that particular >>> group, eg, payor_1-payor_6. I can do this, but then I need to advance >>> the -foreach- to the variable *after* payor_6. >>> >>> One thought I had was to reference the variables by their number, which >>> is available via -describe, number- (I'd have to -keep `biglist'- first) >>> but I'm not sure how to refer to a variable by its number, and can't >>> find any info on how to do so. >>> >>> Does anyone see how to make this idea - or any other- work so I can skip >>> ahead in a -foreach- loop? >> >> * >> * 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/ >> > * > * 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/ > * * 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: advance a -foreach- loop?***From:*"junk@spandrel.net" <junk@spandrel.net>

**Re: st: advance a -foreach- loop?***From:*Jeph Herrin <junk@spandrel.net>

**References**:**st: advance a -foreach- loop?***From:*Jeph Herrin <junk@spandrel.net>

**Re: st: advance a -foreach- loop?***From:*"Austin Nichols" <austinnichols@gmail.com>

**Re: st: advance a -foreach- loop?***From:*Jeph Herrin <junk@spandrel.net>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: multiple rolling regressions** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: infile and dictionaries and the small data mindset** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: advance a -foreach- loop?** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: advance a -foreach- loop?** - Index(es):

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