The implication of a hierarchy is not mine, but Stata's.
-egen- functions are definitely second-class citizens,
in so far as you can only use them in -egen- commands.
Your regular expression shopping list would interest
people who use them. Otherwise this is the same story as
before: there are supposedly lots of examples, it is just that
you are unwilling to give even one that can be discussed
precisely!
Nick
[email protected]
Ari Friedman
> I don't disagree that it can often be done other ways if one
> looks hard
> enough, but there are definitely times where it would be nice
> to write a
> function to do quick things over and over, particularly where
> a function
> relates to locals and thus requires at least two lines were
> it written as a
> Stata command (one to call the function, one to assign the
> returned value to
> a local). I'm not sure I entirely agree with the heirarchy
> that you've set
> up, however, in that I don't know that moving a feature from
> a command to a
> function necessarily represents a "promotion." It's
> certainly a different
> way of doing things, but whether it's better or not entirely
> depends on the
> context.
>
> Given that I've conceded that most things can be done other
> ways, I'm going
> to have to decline your challenge. The only statement I will
> make to that
> effect aside from the aforementioned 'doing simple
> modifications of locals
> in-line' is that a more complete implementation of regular
> expressions would
> be helpful. A comparison to Perl leaves Stata's implementation rather
> humbled--and, although it's not necessarily fair to take the strongest
> feature of one language and compare it to one of the weaker
> features of
> another, nevertheless in day-to-day use powerful regular
> expressions are
> wonderful things to have in one's arsenal.
Nick Cox
> In terms of evidence for this assertion:
> scan the list of
> - -egen- functions, official and user-written,
> to see what really deserves to be promoted to
> a Stata function.
>
> Or here's a challenge: if
> your statement is true, you should be able
> to name a few functions that are missing from
> Stata.
>
> In my Stata programming, I can think of only
> one program I've written that really was an
> awkward substitute for a function, i0kappa.ado
> on SSC. And next time round it will be
> rewritten in Mata anyway.
*
* 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/