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

From |
"Martin Weiss" <martin.weiss1@gmx.de> |

To |
<statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
st: Re: RE: AW: IPF troubles |

Date |
Fri, 15 May 2009 21:25:43 +0200 |

<>

HTH Martin _______________________

To: <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 7:01 PM Subject: st: RE: AW: IPF troubles

Martin is pointing in one wrong direction and one right direction here. What Andrew typed is totally consistent with the syntax declared in the early lines of -ipf- to -syntax-, i.e. syntax [varlist (default=none)] [fweight/] , FIT(string) [ CONstr(string) CONFILE(string) CONVARS(varlist) SAVE(string) EXPect NOLOG ACC(real 0.000001)] That is, the option -fit()- takes a string. In Andrew's case he supplied a character string with an expression "gender + party". That's perfectly legal. -syntax- does not know or care what the string _means_. (Otherwise put, -syntax- knows nothing about semantics.) Thus in particular note that the predictors in the model are not passed via the -varlist-. In fact, a varlist is optional, the default is none, and in this case none was supplied. So there is literally nothing for -syntax- to object to as far as the varlist is concerned. However, as pointed out earlier in the thread by several people, what Andrew typed included names of string variables, and that's not consistent with the expectations of -ipf-, and is caught indirectly later in the program, as Martin correctly points out. What the -syntax- command could do in 2000, or can do now, is not material here. Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk Martin Weiss -trace-ing the thing shows that -ipf- does not catch the wrong type of variable in your -varlist- at the first possible moment, i.e. in its -syntax- statement, presumably because -syntax- was not capable of doing that at the time the command was last edited, i.e. in 2000. Stata finally chokes on a -drop- statement that asks it to compare the string variable to the numeric missing value ".", which leads to the "type mismatch" error. Hard to diagnose without the benefit of -trace-... Andrew Criswell This seems like a straight forward example. But I don't understand why it fails. I am using version 10.1 input str6 gender str8 party wgt gender party wgt male democrat 55 male repub 65 female democrat 50 female repub 30 end . ipf [fweight = wgt], fit(gender + party) Deleting all matrices...... Expansion of the various marginal models ---------------------------------------- marginal model 1 varlist : gender marginal model 2 varlist : party type mismatch r(109); end of do-file r(109); * * 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: Re: RE: AW: IPF troubles***From:*Adrian Mander <adrian.mander@mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk>

**References**:**st: IPF troubles***From:*Andrew Criswell <stata.statistics@gmail.com>

**st: AW: IPF troubles***From:*"Martin Weiss" <martin.weiss1@gmx.de>

**st: RE: AW: IPF troubles***From:*"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

- Prev by Date:
**st: AIC and BIC to compare parametric and non-parametric survival models** - Next by Date:
**st: Re: re: table from stata to latex** - Previous by thread:
**st: RE: AW: IPF troubles** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: Re: RE: AW: IPF troubles** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |