Stata The Stata listserver
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

RE: st: further version questions

From   "Nick Cox" <>
To   <>
Subject   RE: st: further version questions
Date   Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:54:13 +0100

I am not clear that this need depend on StataCorp
introducing new commands. 

Any user-programmer could set up a system like 
this using globals and locals. 

In one main program a programmer could set 

global frog_version 42 

and in called programs could set 

local frog_version 42 
if `frog_version' != $frog_version { 
	di as err "frog: using a mix of old and new versions" 
	exit 498 

and so on. 


Stas Kolenikov
> > But that would gain you nothing, really. -mvis- is just part
> > of a package and the whole package would need
> > to be scanned in a bid to remove Stata 8 features,
> > which would I guess require considerable programming
> > expertise. 
> Can I pick from here on my own thing? Each time I update Sophia
> Rabe-Heskteh's -gllamm-, some of the modules come out to be outdated,
> which I only find out when it crashes. (I know -net install- should
> work perfectly, but I found once that one of the older pieces was
> sitting in a directory of -adopath- prior to others, and thus caused
> problems until I deleted it from there). So for all five or six
> ado-files I have to type -which gllamm-, -which gllapred-, etc., and
> compare to the current versions on -gllamm- website.
> So my suggestion/wish/grumble to Stata Corp. is to set up something
> like -userversion- version control system, so that the internal
> version of the module is specified not through
> *! v.3.1 NJC 29 September 2004
> in the first line of the ado-file, but as a 
> *! NJC 29 September 2004
> program define blahblah, eclass
>    version 8.2
>    userversion 3.1
>    userneed blahblah_ll 1.11
>    ...
> end
> Then whenever -blahblah- calls -blahblah_ll-, the -userversion- of the
> latter is checked against 1.11 and should be no less than that. Or an
> option like
>    userneed blahblah_ll 1.11, strict
> can be provided for the lazy programmers like me who do not want to
> program their routines to be backward compatible, so that the current
> version of -blahblah- will only accept -userversion 1.11- to work
> with.
> Is this too much to ask for? Does anybody else in the stataworld need
> this except me?

*   For searches and help try:

© Copyright 1996–2021 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index