[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 |
st: Cutting out the middle macro [was: RE: Using a scalar/macro for loop limit ...] |

Date |
Tue, 4 Nov 2008 19:14:28 -0000 |

Thomas Jacobs reported that he was unable to figure out how to use either a scalar or a local macro for the maximum index of a loop. In particular, he had tried for a loop over companies identified by -Companies- summ Companies scalar Count = r(max) forvalues i = 1/Count { <stuff> } But that triggered an "invalid syntax" error. Maarten Buis and Martin Weiss between them pointed out that the immediate fix here -- in code that uses a scalar -- is forvalues i = 1/`=Count' { while if you use a local the code could be summ Companies local Count = r(max) forvalues i = 1/`Count' { <stuff> } There was then some discussion about their relative merits. In essence, if the number is really, really big a scalar is preferable to a local, but almost always that difference won't bite. It seems safe to say that it won't bite with numbers of companies. But for the problem specified my answer to the question "Scalar or local?" is "Neither". Take a step back and consider what you are asking Stata to do. 1. Run -summarize- and as a wanted side-effect put the maximum in r(max). 2. Put the value of r(max) in a local or scalar. 3. Loop using -forvalues-, picking up the maximum for the loop index from where it is stored. But 2. is unnecessary. You can go direct from 1. to 3. Examples first, explanation later. You can do this summ Companies forvalues i = 1/`r(max)' { <stuff> } or this summ Companies forvalues i = 1/`=r(max)' { <stuff> } It is largely a matter of style which you choose, except that StataCorp could advise on which is a smidgen of a smidgen faster. In essence r(max) can be thought of having a local macro persona `r(max)'. Alternatively you can invoke the usual way of evaluating an expression on the fly, i.e. r(max) is an expression (which happens to be a single term) and `=r(max)' evaluates it on the fly so that -forvalues- never sees r(max), just its value. This technique has been called "cutting out the middle macro". I did say pedantically "for the problem specified". If you need the value of r(max) for something later in the code, then you need to store it somehow and a local will be useful. But that's not explicit in this problem and in my experience it is more common than not that you don't need the intermediate storage in something else. A separate twist is that whenever you want the maximum only it is more efficient to use -summarize, meanonly-. Despite its not very well chosen name, the -meanonly- option will calculate the maximum. StataCorp developers themselves often miss this nuance. See also FAQ . . . . . . . . . . Making foreach go through all values of a variable 8/05 Is there a way to tell Stata to try all values of a particular variable in a foreach statement without specifying them? http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/data/foreach.html where this technique is used in exactly the same context. Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**References**:**st: Using a scalar/macro for loop limit in building Sureg equations***From:*"Thomas Jacobs" <thomasjacobs@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**RE: st: append to an empty dataset** - Next by Date:
**RE: st: RE: upgrading to v10: do-file won't load** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Using a scalar/macro for loop limit in building Sureg equations** - Next by thread:
**st: Suggestions On Event Study Implementation Using Sureg** - Index(es):

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