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 |
st: RE: Evaluating a set of conditions |

Date |
Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:55:53 +0100 |

It is difficult to add much here at a general level. I guess what will be obvious, but also remains important even as you grow in Stata skills, is that clarity of code is never to be undervalued, that is, even clever ways of coding more concisely are a distraction if whoever reads the code -- most likely you, sometime in the future -- has to struggle to understand it. -cond()- grows on you. I had the interesting but probably unusual experience that a concatenation of circumstances led to my writing an article on it with David Kantor. That forced me to think very hard about the logic of -cond()- and led to my using it much more than previously. I am not sure that making yourself write an article will be a practical way for many users to become familiar with something, but nevertheless, the underlying message, although trite, is also fundamental: what you understand well you tend to use a lot; but also if you get to use something a lot, you will get to understand it better. I wouldn't try to rewrite your example. It shows an extra detail: never be reluctant to parenthesise aggressively using () to emphasise meaning. I probably wouldn't get high marks on a quiz on Stata's precedence rules despite 20 years of Stata use, as if in doubt I just parenthesise to emphasise my logic to myself as well as Stata. Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk Thomas Speidel I realize this is a very broad question and no one solution can fit all problems. I am looking for more efficient or elegant alternatives to evaluate a set of conditions in Stata, than a lenghty if qualifier. E.g.: do something if A==1 & (B>2 & B<.) & (C==1 | D!=2) these expression can become lengthy and one can think of more elegant ways to come to the same results. cond and inrange are the first things that come to my mind that may (or may not) simplify the problem, but I hardly ever use them because understanding them (or remembering them) usually takes longer then writing the 'lengthy' qualifiers. To complicate matters one has to account for missing values. Admittedly, this question came about from the recent topic on missing values. If someone want to share an example, please do so. * * 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: Evaluating a set of conditions***From:*Thomas Speidel <thomas@tmbx.com>

- Prev by Date:
**st: RE: RE: Evaluating a set of conditions** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: Identifying unique values with codebook** - Previous by thread:
**st: RE: RE: Evaluating a set of conditions** - Next by thread:
**st: Re: Evaluating a set of conditions** - Index(es):