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]

RE: st: RE: macro of macros?


From   Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
To   "'statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu'" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   RE: st: RE: macro of macros?
Date   Sun, 6 Nov 2011 15:52:11 +0000

That strikes me as being a question about laying out your code. You can use multiline definitions in conjunction with #delimit ; . 

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

Maria Ana Vitorino

ok. so maybe I wasn't clear....

What Tirthankar suggested (which is below) works fine but the problem  
is that it's not very easy to read what are the different sets used in  
the estimation, i.e. the first line inTirthankar's suggested code can  
get very long and hard to read if one has many different  
specifications with many variables.
So, what I was trying to do was to define the different sets in  
separate lines so that it's easier to read and make changes. What you  
proposed in the previous response works well but may be prone to  
errors so I was wondering if there was a way around that.
Is it more clear what I'm looking for now? Any help is appreciated.

Tirthankar's suggestion:

local rhssets ""x1 x2" "x4 x5" "x2 x6""
local counter = 1

foreach x of local rhssets {
	reg y `x'
	predict yhat`counter'
	local counter = `counter' +1
}

Your suggestion:
local index
local set1 "x1 x2"
local index `index' 1
local set2 "x2 x3"
local index `index' 2

foreach i of local index {
	reg y xvars `set`i''
}

Ana

On Nov 6, 2011, at 10:29 AM, Nick Cox wrote:

> You can do what Tirthankar showed you just recently. In many ways  
> it's a better method. For reasons that weren't clear to me it seemed  
> that you wanted something different.
>
> You might find these tutorials useful:
>
> SJ-3-2  pr0009  . . . . . . . . . . . . . Speaking Stata:  Problems  
> with lists
>        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   
> N. J. Cox
>        Q2/03   SJ 3(2):185--202                                 (no  
> commands)
>        discusses ways of working through lists held in macros
>
> SJ-2-2  pr0005  . . . . . .  Speaking Stata:  How to face lists with  
> fortitude
>        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   
> N. J. Cox
>        Q2/02   SJ 2(2):202--222                                 (no  
> commands)
>        demonstrates the usefulness of for, foreach, forvalues, and
>        local macros for interactive (non programming) tasks
>
> Nick
> n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk
>
> Maria Ana Vitorino
>
> Thanks Nick. This is very helpful.
> This requires that every time I add a set I have to include two
> additional lines and to make sure that the name of the set is in line
> with the index. Using the example again,
>
> If I add another set, say set 4 I need to do:
>
> local set4 "x5 x6"
> local index `index' 4
>
> but suppose that what I do (by mistake) is
>
> local set4 "x5 x6"
> local index `index' 3
>
> Any chance I can add another set in such a way that these types of
> mistakes won't happen?
> Thanks!
> Ana
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Nick Cox wrote:
>
>> Wildcards are for variable names only. But you don't need any such
>> device here. There are various ways to approach what you want.
>> Here's one:
>>
>> local index
>> local set1 "x1 x2"
>> local index `index' 1
>> local set2 "x2 x3"
>> local index `index' 2
>>
>> foreach i of local index {
>> 	reg y xvars `set`i''
>> }
>>
>> Nick
>> n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk
>>
>> Maria Ana Vitorino
>>
>> I've only recently started experimenting with macros and I have the
>> following question: can we have a macro of macros and loop through  
>> the
>> different sub-macros without having to set beforehand  how many sub-
>> macros there are in the macro? Maybe it's easier to understand what
>> I'm looking for with an example:
>>
>> I know that the following can be done:
>>
>> local set1 "x1 x2"
>> local set2 "x2 x3"
>> local sets ""`set1'" "`set2'""  ***
>>
>> foreach xvars of local sets {
>> reg y xvars
>> }
>>
>> But, instead of having to list all the macros in the line ***, can we
>> have something like:
>>
>> local set1 "x1 x2"
>> local set2 "x2 x3"
>>
>> local sets ""`set'*""
>>
>> foreach xvars of local sets {
>> reg y xvars
>> }
>>
>>
>> Ideally I would like to add (or remove) sets as a please so I  
>> wouldn't
>> like to have to keep updating the line *** everytime I 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/


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