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 |
Stefan Bernhard <stefanbernhard88@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
Re: st: Unreasonable error "Obs. nos. out of range" |

Date |
Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:03:44 +0200 |

1. bak was defined during the first loop on observation 1 and thus was still 0 after that :/ myvar[0] and myvar[_N+1] could be exempt from the error listing and so one would know if anything between those one refers to is not there... regards, stefan bernhard, 2013/6/17 Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com>: > You have not answered all my questions about your code. > > I don't know what your programming criteria are here. > > I note only as one common example that references to [_n-1] and [_n+1] > are commonplace and deliberate. > I don't want to see error messages that myvar[0] and myvar[_N+1] don't > exist. I know that already. > Nick > njcoxstata@gmail.com > > > On 17 June 2013 17:36, Stefan Bernhard <stefanbernhard88@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thx Nick, so the thing ist that it is actually possible to refer to a >> non-existant observation, which caused the confusion. >> >> I then found the error after I knew that the observations had to be >> diasspearing. >> >> But I think the way this is handled is somewhat awkward. It should >> already tell me that there is no 2nd observation when I try to refer >> to it with the if clause :/ >> >> best regards, stefan bernhard, >> >> >> >> 2013/6/17 Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com>: >>> Difficult to comment given this little information, but >>> >>> 0. It is possible to have variables defined but no observations. >>> >>> 1. Possibly more to the point, the -replace- will certainly fail if _N >>> < 2 but it's not necessarily an error otherwise to refer to -cats[2]- >>> when it doesn't exist. If -cats- exists as a variable then any >>> references to subscripts that don't correspond to observation numbers >>> are interpreted as missing. >>> >>> 2. However, your code does imply that -cats[2]- is being treated as >>> zero. Could you confirm that -local bak- is not defined before the >>> code you cite? >>> >>> Either way, -list-ing the data would make your situation clearer. >>> >>> This example bears on #1. >>> >>> clear >>> set obs 1 >>> gen cats = 1 >>> if cats[2] == 0 { >>> di "problem 1" >>> } >>> else di "problem 2" >>> >>> Nick >>> njcoxstata@gmail.com >>> >>> >>> On 17 June 2013 15:21, Stefan Bernhard <stefanbernhard88@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> dear statalisters, >>>> >>>> i have a piece of looping code over different variables and all >>>> observations, and an excerpt of the trace shows this: >>>> >>>> = if cats[2] == 0 { >>>> local bak = 0 >>>> } >>>> - noi di as text "bak is `bak'" >>>> = noi di as text "bak is 0" >>>> bak is 0 >>>> - replace `var' = 1 in `i' >>>> = replace cats = 1 in 2 >>>> Obs. nos. out of range >>>> >>>> >>>> This makes no sense at all to me. >>>> >>>> In the first line, it successfully uses the value of cats of >>>> observations number 2 to define the local bak as 0. >>>> >>>> Few lines later, it acts as if there was no more observations number 2 >>>> and cannot replace the number of cats with 1 in observation number 2. >>>> >>>> Why does it say Obs. nos. out of range ? >>>> >>>> regards, stefan bernhard, >>>> * >>>> * 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/ > * > * 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: Unreasonable error "Obs. nos. out of range"***From:*Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com>

**References**:**st: Unreasonable error "Obs. nos. out of range"***From:*Stefan Bernhard <stefanbernhard88@gmail.com>

**Re: st: Unreasonable error "Obs. nos. out of range"***From:*Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com>

**Re: st: Unreasonable error "Obs. nos. out of range"***From:*Stefan Bernhard <stefanbernhard88@gmail.com>

**Re: st: Unreasonable error "Obs. nos. out of range"***From:*Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: Unreasonable error "Obs. nos. out of range"** - Next by Date:
**st: Probit with endogenous interactions** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Unreasonable error "Obs. nos. out of range"** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: Unreasonable error "Obs. nos. out of range"** - Index(es):