Statalist


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

Re: st: RE: minor bug in -lookfor-?


From   Jeph Herrin <[email protected]>
To   [email protected]
Subject   Re: st: RE: minor bug in -lookfor-?
Date   Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:53:42 -0500

Well, I did put a question mark in the subject line...

But how does the following sit with you?


. lookfor age /* sex */

              storage  display     value
variable name   type   format      label      variable label
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
age             byte   %8.0g                  Age
sex             byte   %8.0g                  Sex


As you say, -lookfor- is functioning exactly as advertised.
On the other hand, one comes to expect certain behavior from
Stata commands.  More, if I paste the above line into the do-editor
and -do- it:

. lookfor age /* sex */

              storage  display     value
variable name   type   format      label      variable label
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
age             byte   %8.0g                  Age


I would argue that it's good style, if nothing else, that a
command that runs interactively and in a do-file without
error should return the same results in both contexts.

And yes, I have used -lookfor- in -do-files before, it is a
handy way of grabbing a list of variables and storing them in
a local.

Thoughts?








Nick Cox wrote:
I've got to say that I don't regard this as a bug.
-lookfor- does not claim to support options, nor does it do that. So,
there's no inconsistency either way in that respect.
Nor do I think that there is a good reason to ban commas as input, if
that were to be suggested. Commas can be part of strings, no question.
As -lookfor- behaves reasonably even when Jeph treats it not quite as
intended, wherein lies the bug? Nick [email protected]
Jeph Herrin

For what it's worth, I was surprised to discover that

  lookfor myvar, fullnames

produces the same result as

  lookfor myvar fullnames

That is, if you add any options to -lookfor-, it ignores the
comma and treats the options as search strings.

On the one hand, the documentation clearly indicates there
are no options. On the other, it often happens that I try
options that I think might work and expect Stata complain
if they are invalid.

In this case, I abbreviated -fullnames- to -fu-, and was finding variables that in no way matched -myvar-. Took me a while to
puzzle out.

*
*   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/



© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index