Re: st: Optimizing recoding procedures

[Jeph Herrin <stata@spandrel.net>]

I thought of that, but didn't want to assume. However, if true, and all 
are nonmissing, then an even terser line would be

 replace x = 0 if a&b&c&d

or even

 replace x = cond(a&b&c&d,0,x)



On 12/12/2012 9:55 AM, Nick Cox wrote:
> Wish I'd thought of that.
>
> Nick
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:10 PM, David Radwin <dradwin@mprinc.com> wrote:
>
> > It's not much of an improvement, but if a, b, c, and d all are all dummy
> > (0/1) variables:
> >
> > replace x = 0 if a + b + c + d == 4
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Thomas Lux <tholux2000@yahoo.de>
>
> > > > > > Thank you very much, Nick!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The mentioned statement makes indeed no sense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The statement should be
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > replace x = 0 if a==1 & b==1 & c==1 & d==1 & d==1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there a way to do this in a shorter way?
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> *   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/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/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/