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 |
William Sankey <wsankey@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: A Tale of Two Macros: Why are these macros producing different results? |

Date |
Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:13:08 -0400 |

Thank you for the help, I wonder what the command is processing without the commas? Anyway, I will look to the documentation. Thanks again, On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Sergiy Radyakin <serjradyakin@gmail.com> wrote: > Documentation for inlist says that for strings only 10 arguments are supported. > So the following is a problem: > > . di inlist("208","150","151", "157", "162", "183","191", "196", > "197", "198", "199", "200", "208") > expression too long > r(130); > > Using spaces instead of commas prevents an error, but does not mean > that Stata is working correctly, it merely stops complaining: > > . di inlist("208","150","151", "157", "162", "183","191", "196", "197" > "198" "199" "200" "208") > 0 > > Using -destring- on the variable you will get better results on list > search of the reals: > . di inlist(208, 150, 151, 157, 162, 183, 191, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 208) > 1 > > Using two lists in the program is an additional source of a potential > error. What if you now need to add an additional diagnosis, e.g. 301, > or need to change 191 to 192? > > Best, Sergiy > > > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 5:56 PM, William Buchanan > <william@williambuchanan.net> wrote: >> You have statements that are not equivalent. Check the commas in your first statement. >> >> HTH, >> Billy >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Apr 30, 2013, at 14:37, William Sankey <wsankey@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Good afternoon Statalist, >>> >>> I have two different macros operating in different parts of my code, I >>> developed the first macro some time ago and the second macro recently. >>> I believed these two macros would give me the same output, however, >>> the first macro is producing far fewer observations than the second. >>> It seems that the first is misclassifying observations and though I >>> cannot figure out why. >>> >>> Any help in deciphering what it is about the first macro that would >>> produce fewer observations would be much appreciated. >>> >>> The first macro set: >>> >>> ***Cancer >>> >>> local ICD2 "Diagnosis1 Diagnosis2 Diagnosis3 Diagnosis4 Diagnosis5" >>> foreach X of varlist `ICD2' { >>> replace cancer =1 if inlist(`X',"150","151" "157" "162" "183" "191" >>> "196" "197" "198" "199" "200" "208") >>> } >>> >>> local PMT2 "Diagnosis_PMT_A_1 Diagnosis_PMT_A_2 Diagnosis_PMT_B_1 >>> Diagnosis_PMT_B_2 Diagnosis_PMT_C_1 Diagnosis_PMT_C_2" >>> >>> foreach X of varlist `PMT2' { >>> replace cancer =1 if inlist(`X',"150","151" "157" "162" "183" "191" >>> "196" "197" "198" "199" "200" "208") >>> } >>> >>> >>> The second macro set: >>> >>> gen DIAG_1 = Diagnosis1 >>> gen DIAG_2 = Diagnosis2 >>> gen DIAG_3 = Diagnosis3 >>> gen DIAG_4 = Diagnosis4 >>> gen DIAG_5 = Diagnosis5 >>> >>> gen ALT_A_1 = Diagnosis_PMT_A_1 >>> gen ALT_A_2 = Diagnosis_PMT_A_2 >>> gen ALT_B_1 = Diagnosis_PMT_B_1 >>> gen ALT_B_2 = Diagnosis_PMT_B_2 >>> gen ALT_C_1 = Diagnosis_PMT_C_1 >>> gen ALT_C_2 = Diagnosis_PMT_C_2 >>> ***Cancer >>> >>> forval j = 1/5 { >>> replace cancer=1 /// >>> if inlist(DIAG_`j',"150","151", "157", "162", "183","191", >>> "196", "197" "198" "199" "200" "208") >>> } >>> >>> local letter "A B C" >>> foreach i in `letter' { >>> forval e = 1/2 { >>> replace cancer=1 /// >>> if (inlist(ALT_`i'_`e',"150","151" "157" "162" "183" "191" >>> "196" "197" "198" "199" "200" "208") >>> } >>> } >>> } >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Will >>> >>> -- >>> William J. Sankey >>> Johns Hopkins University >>> MA Public Policy '12 >>> * >>> * 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/ > * > * 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/ -- William J. Sankey Johns Hopkins University MA Public Policy '12 * * 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: A Tale of Two Macros: Why are these macros producing different results?***From:*William Buchanan <william@williambuchanan.net>

**References**:**st: A Tale of Two Macros: Why are these macros producing different results?***From:*William Sankey <wsankey@gmail.com>

**Re: st: A Tale of Two Macros: Why are these macros producing different results?***From:*William Buchanan <william@williambuchanan.net>

**Re: st: A Tale of Two Macros: Why are these macros producing different results?***From:*Sergiy Radyakin <serjradyakin@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: Working with the name of the do file** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: A Tale of Two Macros: Why are these macros producing different results?** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: A Tale of Two Macros: Why are these macros producing different results?** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: A Tale of Two Macros: Why are these macros producing different results?** - Index(es):