On Wed Mar 26 2003 14:36, Nick Cox wrote:
> 1. It would mean that the user of an ado would
> need to know (a) that an ado had this flavour
read the help file?
> and (b) that in consequence such an ado could not be invoked using
> local macros as they would not be substituted.
of course
> (a) bites the beginner hard
since they don't read help files?
> and (b) bites the experienced hard.
just a cost benefit thingie
> Either way, this violates the principle that a user should not
> need to worry about the internal details of an
> ado, so long as it does what it claims.
the user doesn't need to worry about the internals of an ado, he or she should
worry about the syntax of the command, as usual i guess.
> 2. It would mean that to parse command lines
> properly Stata would have to peek inside the
> command being called to see how that command wants to
> treat its input. Without exaggeration, this would
> violate the whole way Stata is constructed
> in terms of division of responsibilities.
"violate the whole way..." seems a bit melodramatic for describing a small
addition to the parser
but when we talk about changing -list- and adding useless separators to the
output, now that violates the whole way stata *used to be* constructed
did i forgot the winkie? oops, i guess i did! ;-)
anyway, it was just a random thought.
best, Ed.
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
