While you're waiting, here's one way round this:
local v "car"
unab vs : `v'*
local exactmatch : list v in vs
Nick
[email protected]
Kaleb Michaud
> I just spent some time trying to debug a program, when I
> realized that the
> -confirm var- command does not require the variable to be
> spelled out fully.
>
> For example, suppose you have a program that looks to see if
> the variable
> "car" exists. If it doesn't, it creates or merges it in.
> But, if I have a
> variable called cartoon and not car in the data:
>
> . confirm var car
>
> gives us _rc == 0 even though the var car doesn't exist and
> the var cartoon
> does. Any way that the Stata powers that be could add an
> "exact" option
> such that the varlist that it is confirming must have exact
> variable syntax
> provided? I think this is often an issue when dealing with
> varlists - I
> know, just change the var names, but sometime this isn't an option.
>
*
* 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/
