Austin,
> Kvetching about Stata's inability to detect and analyze your mistakes
> is an unproductive, or even counterproductive, use of Statalist (you
> got an answer to your initial question within 5 hours; casting
> yourself as a complainer may reduce Statalist's response time).
I only responded to the reactions. I thanked you after your help with my
problem. For me, the topic was closed. I didn't reopen it. I didn't put that
initial remark in a ps for nothing. I didn't complain. The remarks in the
reactions raised very natural questions. I only posted them. You might be
right that this is not the right place. So let's close it then.
For what it's worth, I think it wasn't couterproductive. Everyone can see
now in which trap they might land and they can try to avoid it.
> You
> don't seem to take my point about there being an arbitrary line
> between intelligent error trapping and bloated internal code that
> Stata draws in one place, and various others might draw lower or
> higher.
I told you I'd use your recommendation.
> That said, I agree that there is an inconsistency in handling code
> following an open brace--try out this code:
>
> if 1==1 { di "ok" }
> di "not ok"
> }
> if 1==0 di "not"
> else { di "else" }
> foreach v of varlist _all { d `v'
>
> to see what I mean. Part of the issue no doubt is that -if- has an
> immediate form, e.g.
>
> if 1==1 di "ok"
>
> but since -else- can report the same error as -foreach-, I think -if-
> could probably be made to do the same.
My point too. So we can close it.
-Hendri.
*
* 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/
