yes I could do that ,but I felt people would be cleverer than I was
and would be doing it in a quick slick fashion while i walked on
slooooooooowly putting each local in 1 obs of a string variable while
people were doing SAVE MACROS! and then RECOVER MACROS!
I just wanted to know if someone did it better than I did. The notes
way is clever I think.
Thank you,
Ashim
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Philipp Rehm <[email protected]> wrote:
> True.
> How about forcing it into a (string) variable? Even more tedious, but
> perhaps a way to do it.
>
> Ph
>
> Nick Cox wrote:
>>
>> A matrix could not be used for macros with string content. (Strictly,
>> all macros are strings, but clearly some have numeric content.)
>> Nick [email protected]
>> Philipp Rehm
>>
>> I think that's what do-files are for.
>>
>> Nevertheless: how about building up a matrix which contains the local
>> macros you encounter, which you then save into a variable? You could then
>> recover the local macros with -levelsof-, for example.
>>
>> But I guess a do-file is the more straightforward approach...
>>
>>
>> Ashim Kapoor wrote:
>>>
>>> I somehow feel that you can save local macros in a way other than
>>> using -notes- can you ??
>>>
>>
>> *
>> * For searches and help try:
>> * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
>> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
>> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>>
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
