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 |
Austin Nichols <austinnichols@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: RE: macro of macros? |

Date |
Sun, 6 Nov 2011 11:27:17 -0500 |

Maria Ana Vitorino <vitorino@wharton.upenn.edu>: I, too, prefer code I can cut and paste in one block into the command window, so I use only * comments and collect long lines in macros; it is easy enough to do something like: loc o First part loc o `o', second part loc o `o', third part di "`o'" or loc o First part loc o `" "`o'" "second part" "' loc o `" `o' "third part" "' di `"`o'"' On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Maria Ana Vitorino <vitorino@wharton.upenn.edu> wrote: > thanks. That is indeed a simple solution to this problem. I usually try to > avoid using #delimit because I like to paste parts of the code into the > command window directly and that cannot be done when #delimit is used. But > in this case there may not be a way around it... > Thanks again, > Ana > > On Nov 6, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Nick Cox wrote: > >> 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**RE: st: RE: macro of macros?***From:*Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

**References**:**st: macro of macros?***From:*Maria Ana Vitorino <vitorino@wharton.upenn.edu>

**st: RE: macro of macros?***From:*Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

**Re: st: RE: macro of macros?***From:*Maria Ana Vitorino <vitorino@wharton.upenn.edu>

**RE: st: RE: macro of macros?***From:*Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

**Re: st: RE: macro of macros?***From:*Maria Ana Vitorino <vitorino@wharton.upenn.edu>

**RE: st: RE: macro of macros?***From:*Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

**Re: st: RE: macro of macros?***From:*Maria Ana Vitorino <vitorino@wharton.upenn.edu>

- Prev by Date:
**RE: st: RE: macro of macros?** - Next by Date:
**RE: st: RE: macro of macros?** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: RE: macro of macros?** - Next by thread:
**RE: st: RE: macro of macros?** - Index(es):