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: Optimizing recoding procedures


From   Jeph Herrin <stata@spandrel.net>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: Optimizing recoding procedures
Date   Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:15:18 -0500

I thought of that, but didn't want to assume. However, if true, and all are nonmissing, then an even terser line would be

 replace x = 0 if a&b&c&d

or even

 replace x = cond(a&b&c&d,0,x)



On 12/12/2012 9:55 AM, Nick Cox wrote:
Wish I'd thought of that.

Nick

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:10 PM, David Radwin <dradwin@mprinc.com> wrote:

It's not much of an improvement, but if a, b, c, and d all are all dummy
(0/1) variables:

replace x = 0 if a + b + c + d == 4

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Thomas Lux <tholux2000@yahoo.de>

Thank you very much, Nick!

The mentioned statement makes indeed no sense.

The statement should be


replace x = 0 if a==1 & b==1 & c==1 & d==1 & d==1

Is there a way to do this in a shorter way?
*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/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/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/


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