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


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/


© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index