Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.

[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: Problems that seem to be the result of a "long command line" in a do file |

Date |
Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:28:27 +0200 |

<> Ok, I am glad you have found a solution, but I recall much longer calls, particularly for -twoway- graphs, so the mystery of why the call got chopped still lingers. -h limits- tells me that the upper limit for # of characters in a command is at least 8,697, and possibly much more, depending on your version of Stata. The impressive amount of output after -set tr on- is understandable, yet the only part you are really interested in is the area around the error. HTH Martin -----Original Message----- From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Hoogendoorn, Adriaan Sent: Mittwoch, 16. Juni 2010 00:12 To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Subject: st: RE: AW: Problems that seem to be the result of a "long command line" in a do file Dear Martin, Thank you for pointing out the "set trace on" option. Running the command with the "set trace on" option generated an impressive amount of code, that confirmed my earlier guess that the "long command line" was somehow truncated. At the same time the enormous amount of code made me humble enough to be not so picky and use the simple solution of renaming the original variables into shorter variable names. That was not so bad after all, and worked fine. Tnx again, Kind regards, Adriaan Hoogendoorn ________________________________________ From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Weiss [martin.weiss1@gmx.de] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:37 PM To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Subject: st: AW: Problems that seem to be the result of a "long command line" in a do file <> " Do you know of a way I can run the first command? I could use shorter variable names, but I am hoping for a more elegant solution." Maybe store the lists in -local-s and have them expanded within the call to -confa-? What does -set trace on- tell you about the error? HTH Martin -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] Im Auftrag von Hoogendoorn, Adriaan Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. Juni 2010 23:31 An: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu Betreff: st: Problems that seem to be the result of a "long command line" in a do file Dear Statalist, I encounter some problems that seem to be the result of a "long command line" in a do file, even though I broke the long command line up into several parts over several lines (see below). The problem may be the result of my bad knowledge of Stata on this point. I encounter the problem in a call to the 'confa' command in Stanislav Kolenikov's package that does Confirmatory Factor Analysis (package st0169 from http://www.stata-journal.com/software/sj9-3). The call: confa (list_ae: ru001ae01 ru002ae02 ru003ae03 da001ae01 da002ae02 /// da003ae03 vo001ae01 vo002ae02 vo003ae03 vo004ae04 ) /// (list_ep: ru005ep01 ru006ep02 ru007ep03 ru008ep04 ru009ep05 /// da005ep01 da006ep02 da007ep03 vo005ep01 vo007ep03 ) /// (list_et: ru011et01 ru012et02 ru013et03 ru014et04 da011et01 /// da013et03 da014et04 vo011et01 vo012et02 vo013et03 ) /// , from(smart) iterate(50) results into the error message "da0 ambigous abbreviation", while the call: confa (list_ae: ru001ae01 ru002ae02 ru003ae03 da001ae01 da002ae02 /// da003ae03 vo001ae01 vo002ae02 vo003ae03 vo004ae04 ) /// (list_ep: ru005ep01 ru006ep02 ru007ep03 ru008ep04 ru009ep05 /// da005ep01 da006ep02 da007ep03 vo005ep01 vo007ep03 ) /// (list_et: ru011et01 ru012et02 ru013et03 ru014et04 ), from(smart) iterate(50) - which is identical to the first call, except that 'list_et' consists of four instead of ten variables - works fine. Do you know of a way I can run the first command? I could use shorter variable names, but I am hoping for a more elegant solution. Your help is very welcome. Kind regards, Adriaan W. Hoogendoorn GGZ inGeest, Amsterdam Dit e-mailbericht is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Als dit bericht niet voor u bestemd is, wordt u verzocht dit aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te vernietigen. Het is niet toegestaan de inhoud van dit bericht verder te verspreiden of te gebruiken. Voor meer informatie over GGZ inGeest: www.ggzingeest.nl. * * 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/

**References**:**st: Problems that seem to be the result of a "long command line" in a do file***From:*"Hoogendoorn, Adriaan" <A.Hoogendoorn@ggzingeest.nl>

**st: AW: Problems that seem to be the result of a "long command line" in a do file***From:*"Martin Weiss" <martin.weiss1@gmx.de>

**st: RE: AW: Problems that seem to be the result of a "long command line" in a do file***From:*"Hoogendoorn, Adriaan" <A.Hoogendoorn@ggzingeest.nl>

- Prev by Date:
**st: RE: AW: Problems that seem to be the result of a "long command line" in a do file** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: HP filter for a single series on a panel data** - Previous by thread:
**st: RE: AW: Problems that seem to be the result of a "long command line" in a do file** - Next by thread:
**st: RE: RE: AW: Problems that seem to be the result of a "long command line" in a do file** - Index(es):