Bookmark and Share

Notice: On March 31, it was announced that Statalist is moving from an email list to a forum. The old list will shut down at the end of May, and its replacement, statalist.org is already up and running.


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

st: RE: AW: RE: RE: variable labels and reshape--reinserting en masse


From   "Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
To   <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   st: RE: AW: RE: RE: variable labels and reshape--reinserting en masse
Date   Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:32:09 +0100

Yes, and for that reason -for- was a source of much small pleasure (when
it worked as the user intended) and  of a great deal of frustration and
wasted time (when it didn't). In 2002 I advised against learning it 

http://www.stata-journal.com/sjpdf.html?articlenum=pr0005

and in 2003 I wrote an obituary 

http://www.stata-journal.com/sjpdf.html?articlenum=pr0009

It is actually still in Stata 11 but not even "undocumented". 

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

Martin Weiss

The syntax looks neat, compared with today`s requirements of opening
braces
not followed by anything, and closing braces demanding a line of their
own
:-)

Nick Cox

Hewan is referring to an old Stata command -for-, last documented in
Stata 7. 

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

Martin Weiss

Where does the "for any 5 6a 6b 8_2:" syntax come from?

Hewan Belay

for any 5 6a 6b 8_2: local myvarlab_X : variable label biqX


*
*   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   |   Site index