Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk> |

To |
"'statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu'" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
RE: st: RE: macro of macros? |

Date |
Sun, 6 Nov 2011 16:23:57 +0000 |

Here's another way. You don't have to count. But you still need to get the code right! local I = 0 local set`++I' frog toad local set`++I' toad newt local set`++I' dinosaur aardvark local set`++I' sasuser spssuser forval i = 1/`I' { di "`set`i''" } frog toad toad newt dinosaur aardvark sasuser spssuser Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk Maria Ana Vitorino thanks. That is indeed a simple solution to this problem. I usually try to avoid using #delimit because I like to paste parts of the code into the command window directly and that cannot be done when #delimit is used. But in this case there may not be a way around it... On Nov 6, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Nick Cox wrote: > That strikes me as being a question about laying out your code. You > can use multiline definitions in conjunction with #delimit ; . > > Nick > n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk > > Maria Ana Vitorino > > ok. so maybe I wasn't clear.... > > What Tirthankar suggested (which is below) works fine but the problem > is that it's not very easy to read what are the different sets used in > the estimation, i.e. the first line inTirthankar's suggested code can > get very long and hard to read if one has many different > specifications with many variables. > So, what I was trying to do was to define the different sets in > separate lines so that it's easier to read and make changes. What you > proposed in the previous response works well but may be prone to > errors so I was wondering if there was a way around that. > Is it more clear what I'm looking for now? Any help is appreciated. > > Tirthankar's suggestion: > > local rhssets ""x1 x2" "x4 x5" "x2 x6"" > local counter = 1 > > foreach x of local rhssets { > reg y `x' > predict yhat`counter' > local counter = `counter' +1 > } > > Your suggestion: > local index > local set1 "x1 x2" > local index `index' 1 > local set2 "x2 x3" > local index `index' 2 > > foreach i of local index { > reg y xvars `set`i'' > } > > Ana > > On Nov 6, 2011, at 10:29 AM, Nick Cox wrote: > >> You can do what Tirthankar showed you just recently. In many ways >> it's a better method. For reasons that weren't clear to me it seemed >> that you wanted something different. >> >> You might find these tutorials useful: >> >> SJ-3-2 pr0009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Speaking Stata: Problems >> with lists >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> N. J. Cox >> Q2/03 SJ 3(2):185--202 (no >> commands) >> discusses ways of working through lists held in macros >> >> SJ-2-2 pr0005 . . . . . . Speaking Stata: How to face lists with >> fortitude >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> N. J. Cox >> Q2/02 SJ 2(2):202--222 (no >> commands) >> demonstrates the usefulness of for, foreach, forvalues, and >> local macros for interactive (non programming) tasks >> >> Nick >> n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk >> >> Maria Ana Vitorino >> >> Thanks Nick. This is very helpful. >> This requires that every time I add a set I have to include two >> additional lines and to make sure that the name of the set is in line >> with the index. Using the example again, >> >> If I add another set, say set 4 I need to do: >> >> local set4 "x5 x6" >> local index `index' 4 >> >> but suppose that what I do (by mistake) is >> >> local set4 "x5 x6" >> local index `index' 3 >> >> Any chance I can add another set in such a way that these types of >> mistakes won't happen? >> Thanks! >> Ana >> >> >> On Nov 6, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Nick Cox wrote: >> >>> Wildcards are for variable names only. But you don't need any such >>> device here. There are various ways to approach what you want. >>> Here's one: >>> >>> local index >>> local set1 "x1 x2" >>> local index `index' 1 >>> local set2 "x2 x3" >>> local index `index' 2 >>> >>> foreach i of local index { >>> reg y xvars `set`i'' >>> } >>> >>> Nick >>> n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk >>> >>> Maria Ana Vitorino >>> >>> I've only recently started experimenting with macros and I have the >>> following question: can we have a macro of macros and loop through >>> the >>> different sub-macros without having to set beforehand how many sub- >>> macros there are in the macro? Maybe it's easier to understand what >>> I'm looking for with an example: >>> >>> I know that the following can be done: >>> >>> local set1 "x1 x2" >>> local set2 "x2 x3" >>> local sets ""`set1'" "`set2'"" *** >>> >>> foreach xvars of local sets { >>> reg y xvars >>> } >>> >>> But, instead of having to list all the macros in the line ***, can >>> we >>> have something like: >>> >>> local set1 "x1 x2" >>> local set2 "x2 x3" >>> >>> local sets ""`set'*"" >>> >>> foreach xvars of local sets { >>> reg y xvars >>> } >>> >>> >>> Ideally I would like to add (or remove) sets as a please so I >>> wouldn't >>> like to have to keep updating the line *** everytime I do so... * * 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: RE: macro of macros?***From:*Maria Ana Vitorino <vitorino@wharton.upenn.edu>

**References**:**st: macro of macros?***From:*Maria Ana Vitorino <vitorino@wharton.upenn.edu>

**st: RE: macro of macros?***From:*Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

**Re: st: RE: macro of macros?***From:*Maria Ana Vitorino <vitorino@wharton.upenn.edu>

**RE: st: RE: macro of macros?***From:*Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

**Re: st: RE: macro of macros?***From:*Maria Ana Vitorino <vitorino@wharton.upenn.edu>

**RE: st: RE: macro of macros?***From:*Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

**Re: st: RE: macro of macros?***From:*Maria Ana Vitorino <vitorino@wharton.upenn.edu>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: spatial weight matrix in stata** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: RE: macro of macros?** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: RE: macro of macros?** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: RE: macro of macros?** - Index(es):