Statalist


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

Re: st: dprobit/nocons/mfx question


From   Kit Baum <baum@bc.edu>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: dprobit/nocons/mfx question
Date   Sat, 21 Mar 2009 07:39:01 -0400

<>
I would not advocate dropping the command (and as you say StataCorp would not do so). What can be done is to move it to the status of - for- or -ivreg-. They are still there, just not documented, in their deprecated status.


Kit Baum   |   Boston College Economics and DIW Berlin   |   http://ideas.repec.org/e/pba1.html
An Introduction to Stata Programming   |   http://www.stata-press.com/books/isp.html
An Introduction to Modern Econometrics Using Stata   |   http://www.stata-press.com/books/imeus.html



On Mar 21, 2009, at 02:33 , Maarten wrote:

The case for keeping -dprobit- is a case for backward
compatability, which is one of the strong points of Stata.
To maintain backward compatability, you should be very
careful about dropping a command. Basicly you should only
do so if it gives truely wrong results, and that is not the
case with -dprobit-. An altarnative to dropping the command
would be to depreciate it to an undocumented command (see:
- -help undocumented-). That may not be a bad idea, but than
again, I usually use -logit- rather than -probit- so I
wouldn't notice anyhow.

*
*   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