Notice: On March 31, it was **announced** that Statalist is moving from an email list to a **forum**. The old list will shut down on April 23, and its replacement, **statalist.org** is already up and running.

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

From |
"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk> |

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

Subject |
RE: st: Why my codes run well on version 9.1 but not on version 10 |

Date |
Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:51:39 -0000 |

Although you thank us for our comments, you don't really address any of them! I can't see any Stata programs here, just a do file with references to other do files. Sorry, but this is not a problem report that can be commented on as it is really is not clear what the problem is. The detail here does not add to "doesn't run properly". A problem report would be a comparison of the _same_ code on the _same_ data in _different_ versions of Stata showing that the _results_ differ. That and only that would support your assertion implicit here that changes in Stata have caused problems. I think the best way forward for you is to take this up with Stata tech support. They are going to need to see a lot more information, minimally two logs gained as above showing different outcomes. I echo Neil's separate bemusement on what is meant by "portable" and "fully installed" here. Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk Quang Nguyen Many thanks for your helpful comments. I run the program in the portable Stata version 9 and 10, and it run well. However, the program doesn't run properly in the Stata 10 which is fully installed into our computer. I would appreciate if you could help me find out whta might go on here: For your reference, I am enclosing the codes here: # delimit; ***************************************************************; *NAME:lancetout.do * *DESCRIPTION: * -General definition * -launch all the programes *ARGUMENTS: ***************************************************************; * -----------------------------------------------------------------; * -----------------------------------------------------------------; * General definition; * ------------------; * Useful definitions; * ------------------; drop _all; set mem 50000; set more off; set logtype text; set linesize 255; set matsize 800; *Definitions of working file Sylvie; *----------------------------------; *global prog "C:\Sylvie\GATE-Travail\Sylvie_GATE\Migration\Stata\prog\"; *global bases "C:\Sylvie\GATE-Travail\Sylvie_GATE\Migration\Stata\bases\"; *global data "C:\Sylvie\GATE-Travail\Sylvie_GATE\Migration\Stata\data\"; *global log "C:\Sylvie\GATE-Travail\Sylvie_GATE\Migration\Stata\log\"; *Definitions of working file Xu Hui; *----------------------------------; global prog "F:\Stata\2008_survey\prog\"; global bases "F:\Stata\2008_survey\bases\"; global data "F:\Stata\2008_survey\data\"; global log "F:\Stata\2008_survey\log\"; *-------------------------------------------; *General definition (end); *----------------------------------------------------------------; *----------------------------------------------------------------; *----------------------------------------------------------------; *----------------------------------------------------------------; *Programs; *--------; * Import Excel data (Stata transfer + direct copy); *-------------------------------------------------; use ${data}indi_1; sort hh memb; save ${bases}indi_1, replace; use ${data}indi_2; sort hh memb; save ${bases}indi_2, replace; use ${data}indi_3; sort hh memb; save ${bases}indi_3, replace; use ${data}hh; sort hh; save ${bases}hh, replace; use ${data}village; sort town village; save ${bases}village, replace; * Merge all the sub-files into the database to use; *-------------------------------------------------; drop _all; capture log close; log using ${log}merge, replace; use ${bases}indi_1; sort hh memb; save ${bases}indi_1,replace; merge hh memb using ${bases}indi_2; tab _merge; drop _merge; save ${bases}indi, replace; use ${bases}indi; sort hh memb; save ${bases}indi,replace; merge hh memb using ${bases}indi_3; tab _merge; drop _merge; save ${bases}indi, replace; log close; *********************************************; *All variable renaming has been done in Excel; *********************************************; *********************************; * Programs for creating variables; *********************************; * Household variables; *--------------------; do ${prog}hh; * Add the household variables into the individual variables data base; *--------------------------------------------------------------------; do ${prog}indi_hh; * Village variables; *------------------; do ${prog}village; * Add the village/town variables into the individual and household variables data base; *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------; do ${prog}indi_hh_village; * Individual variables; *---------------------; do ${prog}indi; ********************************; * Programs for data verification; ********************************; *do ${prog}stat_verif; *done before; *************************************; * Programs for descriptive statistics; *************************************; * By town; *--------; *do ${prog}stat_town; * By household; *-------------; *do ${prog}stat_des_hh; * By migration status; *--------------------; do ${prog}stat_des_mig; ***************************; * Programs for econometrics; ***************************; * Multinominal logit regression; *------------------------------; * do ${prog}mlogit; * Probit regressions; *-------------------; * do ${prog}biprobit; do ${prog}ivprobit; *------------------------------; *programs (end) *---------------------------------------------------------------------; *---------------------------------------------------------------------; ***********************************************************************; *DO FILE END; *************; On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk> wrote: > In addition to this and other sensible comments, I note that > > -recode-'s aim has long (I'd say, always) been recoding numerical > categorical variables and that this has not changed, certainly not > between 9 and 10.1. (Stata, perhaps idiosyncratically, doesn't regard > string variables as even categorical.) > > The word "drop" is ambiguous, as witness > > 1. drop meaning -drop-, otherwise delete or eliminate. > > 2. drop meaning omit, as in not including variables as predictors in a > model, even when asked. > > 3. drop meaning ignore, as in just skipping over, as -summarize- does > with string variables. > > Without more detail I can't see that anything can be added more > positively to help Quang here. > > Nick > n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk > > Phil Schumm > > On Feb 25, 2010, at 6:38 AM, Quang Nguyen wrote: >> We have a small program which run well on Stata version 9.1. >> However, when we run it on Stata/SE 10, there is a message like " >> recode only runs with numeric variable". We check and find that >> Stata just automatically drop some variables in the in-between >> steps. This happens as we run the program as a whole. If we run the >> program comand by comand it works well. Do you know wht amight cause >> this, and what is the solution. > > Your question is impossible to answer without additional information > -- you'll need to step through your do-file bit-by-bit (e.g., use - > exit-), comparing the results obtained under 9.1 to those obtained > under 10 at each step to locate the exact source of the discrepancy. > At that point, someone here can help explain the cause of the > difference, if necessary. > > Three quick comments. First, have you used -version 9.1- at the top > of your do-file? Using -version- is the single best (and easiest) way > to make sure that code written for one version of Stata will continue > to run under new versions. Second, are you calling any 3rd party > commands from within your do-file? If so, it's possible that one of > these commands is behaving differently under Stata 10 than under Stata > 9.1 (note that use of -version- within your do-file will not affect > this). Finally, you mentioned that "If we run the program comand by > comand it works well." I assume here that you are referring to > selecting portions of the file and choosing "Run" -- note that this > differs from executing the do-file continuously from the beginning in > several important ways (e.g., local macros are lost and the last - > preserve- is automatically restored each time control is returned to > Stata). For this reason, this is not a good way to debug. Instead, > use -exit- to stop the script at various points along the way (but > always run continuously from the beginning), as described above. > * * 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**:**AW: st: Why my codes run well on version 9.1 but not on version 10***From:*"Martin Weiss" <martin.weiss1@gmx.de>

**References**:**st: Why my codes run well on version 9.1 but not on version 10***From:*Quang Nguyen <quangn@gmail.com>

**Re: st: Why my codes run well on version 9.1 but not on version 10***From:*Phil Schumm <pschumm@uchicago.edu>

**RE: st: Why my codes run well on version 9.1 but not on version 10***From:*"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

**Re: st: Why my codes run well on version 9.1 but not on version 10***From:*Quang Nguyen <quangn@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: AW: st: Why my codes run well on version 9.1 but not on version 10** - Next by Date:
**AW: st: Why my codes run well on version 9.1 but not on version 10** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Why my codes run well on version 9.1 but not on version 10** - Next by thread:
**AW: st: Why my codes run well on version 9.1 but not on version 10** - Index(es):