-for- went undocumented a while ago. If
you, like Ron�n, are happy with it, then
so be it, but you must be using some old
version of Stata or remembering the syntax
from way back.
If it is unfamiliar, don't touch it. It is
very inefficient, it bites and it leads into
very bad habits. Some of the reasons have been
documented at length in FAQs and in the Stata
Journal.
Those with long memories may recall writings
or postings of mine showing how to use it.
I confess to everything. But -foreach- and -forvalues-
are a heap better and far preferable.
Nick
[email protected]
Ron�n Conroy
>
> for slamming through variable lists, I still like -for-
>
> . for var1 - var99 : regress X gender \ ranksum X, by(gender)
>
> Note that this gives you your OLS and rank test one under the other.
>
> Another advantage of regress is that you can adjust the comparisons:
>
> . for var1 - var99 : regress X gender age \ adjust, by(gender) xb ci
> format(your format here)
>
> and this little tweak would dump age-adjusted means and confidence
> intervals into the output in the right place.
*
* 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/
