Statalist


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

st: RE: Re: two steps of writing commands


From   "Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
To   <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   st: RE: Re: two steps of writing commands
Date   Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:29:22 -0000

Thanks for the plug. I am not sure that this is what Mandy is seeking,
but anyone interested in style rules (add any ironic overtones you wish)
will find that the write-up in 

SJ-5-4  pr0018  . . . . . . . . . . . . Suggestions on Stata programming
style
        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  N.
J. Cox
        Q4/05   SJ 5(4):560--566                                 (no
commands)
        suggestions for good Stata programming style

supersedes the document on SSC. That is accessible to all via 

<http://www.stata-journal.com/sjpdf.html?articlenum=pr0018> 

Nick 
n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk 

Kit Baum

Nick Cox's stylerules might be useful:  findit stylerules

On Feb 12, 2009, at 02:33 ,Mandy wrote:

> I was wondering if I sould combine these two steps together.  Should I
> take consideration of getting the commands simpler, more concise,and
> more transparent in step 1 so that I don't need step 2 at all? Is the
> two-step way usual or most people don't need the second step? Any
> comments will be helpful.  Thanks a lot!


*
*   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 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index