[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
"Ashim Kapoor" <ashimkapoor@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: RE: if and if |

Date |
Sat, 15 Nov 2008 08:03:25 +0530 |

Dear Nick, Thank you for your email. Your examples are really good and I could not think of them. I see it better now. Thank you, Ashim. On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk> wrote: > Further thoughts: > > Suppose _hypothetically_ that blocks > > if exp { > > } > > were to be interpreted observation by observation when <exp> in > principle takes on a different value for each observation, as for > example > > if varname == 2 { > > } > > Now > > 1. What happens if the data change during the { }, say some or all of > the values of -varname- are changed, or -varname- is dropped? > > 2. What happens if you nest two or more of these say > > if varname == 2 { > ... > if anothervarname > 3 { > ... > } > ... > } > > Which observations are to be used in the inner loop? > > 3. What happens if we have two types of -if-s say > > if varname == 2 { > ... > ... if varname == 3 > ... > } > > Which observations are to be used in the inner statement? > > In essence, the key point is that no language feature is totally > independent of any others. It's not that it would be impossible to work > out rules for these circumstances; it's just that I suspect that on > balance they would bite users -- often with highly mysterious bugs -- > more than they helped them. Also, the more complicated code you wrote, > the more likely you would be to get lost on what you are doing -- not > that it's impossible now. > > Ashim in effect wants Stata to act as smartly as he can think when he is > on form -- and so do we all. The trouble is that software has to be > written that does not make too easy for us to do very weird stupid > things by accident. > > Nick > n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk > > Nick Cox > > Dear Ashim: > > You make the same point and you should not be surprised that my reply is > the same. Sure, you find this "natural" but you did not design Stata. > The ambiguity of > > if exp ... > > meaning one thing when the result of exp is a single true or false value > and another thing when the result is a variable's worth is not in my > view a desirable feature. What's much more important is that Bill Gould > disagreed with you in 1985. > > Those of us who grew up with Fortran, C or similar languages I suggest > find it natural that the expression in > > if exp { > > is single-valued. So, whose taste prevails? > > It may not help much now, but my prediction is that once you have been > using Stata for 17 years, you will have come to agree with Bill Gould's > decision. (It should take much less.) > > Nick > n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk > > Ashim Kapoor > > Dear Nick, > > I think it is lacking because : it seemed to me that it is natural to > think that > > if ( var1==2) { > > replace var2==3 > replace var3==4 > > } > > in this case the program should be SMART enough to do the replacements > in corresponding observations and not only work in the 1st > observations,etc . > > I mean if someone DOES NOT know Stata (but he does know that each var > in stata is a column vector ) and the 1st observation rule, what would > he think on the FIRST look at this code. Surely it would seem that the > changes would be made in the corresponding observations. > > Seems intuitive to me. And it has everyday use in my programming. > Maybe for other reasons as you point out the people who programmed it > did not let it work that way and they may be right. > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk> wrote: >> This business of the two -if-s has confused many people. >> >> (Incidentally, I think -cond()- is a red herring as far as this > question >> is concerned. It is without doubt very useful, but it has no bearing > on >> the matter.) >> >> But what Ashim wants is, I think, not "in between" at all. He wants > what >> he calls Type 2 -- the -if- command -- to do the same as what he calls >> Type 1 -- the -if- qualifier -- when both are based on tests on >> variables. >> >> However, it doesn't, and no amount of hoping, wishing, pushing or >> shoving will make it so -- apart from one borderline exception. >> >> His query raises the question of why Stata has the two constructs if >> they are really identical. But they aren't. >> >> It often happens that people used to some construct in other languages >> would like to see Stata behave that way, and vice versa, but that's > the >> way it is. If you go to users' meetings (e.g. today and tomorrow in > San >> Francisco), you can confront the developers and say "Why is Stata >> designed like that?". Sometimes there is a compelling argument against >> one syntax and for another; sometimes the answer is "We had to make a >> choice, and we just liked that syntax". But no syntax can be based on >> users knowing that they mean one thing in one context and one thing in >> another. All syntaxes have to be based on the language implementation >> having only one interpretation of what is meant. >> >> I have got to say, however, that the Stata documentation is not 100% >> innocent here. If you look at -help ifcmd- it gives among other > details >> >> ================= >> Typical use: Example 3 >> >> program ... >> ... >> if x==1 local word "one" >> else if x==2 local word "two" >> else if x==3 local word "three" >> else if x==4 local word "four" >> else local word "big" >> ... >> end >> ================== >> >> But this example is _only_ good programming style if -x- is a scalar. >> (Arguably not even then, as a temporary name would be preferable.) And >> that is not explained, or (to me) self-evident. >> >> Also, the fact that (again, for a variable x) >> >> if x == 1 ... >> >> will be taken as >> >> if x[1] == 1 ... >> >> is not explained in the help, although it is in [P] -if- and the FAQ >> cited earlier in this thread. I think several people would find out >> about this matter earlier and easier if the point were made in the > help. >> >> >> The borderline exception is thus that for a variable x >> >> if x == 1 ... >> >> is exactly equivalent to >> >> ... if x == 1 >> >> if and only if you have a single-observation dataset. >> >> There are languages that support something like >> >> if x == 1 ... >> >> as equivalent to >> >> ... if x == 1 >> >> -- doesn't SAS support something similar -- but that is in a context >> that implies a loop over observations. Stata's way of supporting loops >> over observations (think of the ways that -generate- and -replace- > work) >> is more usually implicit. >> >> As Ashim pointed out, Stata offers a concise alternative to >> >> replace j=2 if k==2 >> replace m=2 if k==2 >> replace n=2 if k==2 >> >> It is >> >> foreach v of var j m n { >> replace `v' = 2 if k == 2 >> } >> >> (Ashim's own code here is illegal, by virtue of his omitting "var".) >> >> Alternatively, you can go >> >> foreach v in j m n { >> >> Short of Stata re-inventing itself as an ultra-terse language like APL >> or J either seems to me about as concise as anyone might want. I > really >> don't understand why Ashim wants a "better way". What could be better, >> or how is this lacking? >> >> Nick >> n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk >> >> Ashim Kapoor >> >> I realize that there are 2 kinds if's in Stata. >> >> Type 1 : would be something like replace j = 2 if k==2 >> here the replace in j would happen ONLY in the corresponding >> observation of k. THIS IS WHAT I WANT. >> >> Type 2 : the programming if something like >> >> local j >> >> if `j'==2 { >> >> do something. >> >> } >> >> ************************************************************** >> >> I guess I want to do something which is in between the above 2. >> >> I want to say the following : -- >> >> replace j=2 if k==2 >> replace m=2 if k==2 >> replace n=2 if k==2 >> >> in ONE shot. >> >> so I try : - >> ************************************** Block A >> if k==2 { >> replace j=2 >> replace m=2 >> replace n=2 >> } >> ********************************************* >> This does not work. Because k==2 would mean k==2 in ALL observations. >> While I mean to say make j / m / n = 2 in those observations where k >> is 2. >> >> How do I do this in a quick manner in Block A ? >> >> I understand that I can always do :- >> >> foreach var of j m n { >> replace `var'=2 if k==2 >> } >> >> But is there a better way ? >> >> The reason I want this is the following : - >> >> I want >> >> if k==2 { >> replace j=1 >> replace m=5 >> replace n=89 >> } >> >> so the above method fails as I do not have the SAME value 2 to be put >> in each of j / m /n. >> >> Any slick way of doing this ? > > > * > * 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/ > * * 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: if and if***From:*"Ashim Kapoor" <ashimkapoor@gmail.com>

**st: RE: if and if***From:*"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

**Re: st: RE: if and if***From:*"Ashim Kapoor" <ashimkapoor@gmail.com>

**RE: st: RE: if and if***From:*"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

**RE: st: RE: if and if***From:*"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

- Prev by Date:
**RE: st: Conditional multinomial logistic regression** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: RE: if and if** - Previous by thread:
**RE: st: RE: if and if** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: RE: if and if** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2015 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |