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 <[email protected]> |

To |
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> |

Subject |
Re: st: Unreasonable error "Obs. nos. out of range" |

Date |
Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:31:58 +0100 |

As said, [0] and [_N+1] were examples and [-1] [_N+2] and ... are other examples. I think this is one of those situations in which first time you are bitten you think Stata should behave differently, but after a while you see why Stata behaves as it does. Nick [email protected] On 17 June 2013 18:03, Stefan Bernhard <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. bak was defined during the first loop on observation 1 and thus was > still 0 after that :/ > > myvar[0] and myvar[_N+1] could be exempt from the error listing and so > one would know if anything between those one refers to is not there... > > regards, stefan bernhard, > > 2013/6/17 Nick Cox <[email protected]>: >> You have not answered all my questions about your code. >> >> I don't know what your programming criteria are here. >> >> I note only as one common example that references to [_n-1] and [_n+1] >> are commonplace and deliberate. >> I don't want to see error messages that myvar[0] and myvar[_N+1] don't >> exist. I know that already. >> Nick >> [email protected] >> >> >> On 17 June 2013 17:36, Stefan Bernhard <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Thx Nick, so the thing ist that it is actually possible to refer to a >>> non-existant observation, which caused the confusion. >>> >>> I then found the error after I knew that the observations had to be >>> diasspearing. >>> >>> But I think the way this is handled is somewhat awkward. It should >>> already tell me that there is no 2nd observation when I try to refer >>> to it with the if clause :/ >>> >>> best regards, stefan bernhard, >>> >>> >>> >>> 2013/6/17 Nick Cox <[email protected]>: >>>> Difficult to comment given this little information, but >>>> >>>> 0. It is possible to have variables defined but no observations. >>>> >>>> 1. Possibly more to the point, the -replace- will certainly fail if _N >>>> < 2 but it's not necessarily an error otherwise to refer to -cats[2]- >>>> when it doesn't exist. If -cats- exists as a variable then any >>>> references to subscripts that don't correspond to observation numbers >>>> are interpreted as missing. >>>> >>>> 2. However, your code does imply that -cats[2]- is being treated as >>>> zero. Could you confirm that -local bak- is not defined before the >>>> code you cite? >>>> >>>> Either way, -list-ing the data would make your situation clearer. >>>> >>>> This example bears on #1. >>>> >>>> clear >>>> set obs 1 >>>> gen cats = 1 >>>> if cats[2] == 0 { >>>> di "problem 1" >>>> } >>>> else di "problem 2" >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> On 17 June 2013 15:21, Stefan Bernhard <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> dear statalisters, >>>>> >>>>> i have a piece of looping code over different variables and all >>>>> observations, and an excerpt of the trace shows this: >>>>> >>>>> = if cats[2] == 0 { >>>>> local bak = 0 >>>>> } >>>>> - noi di as text "bak is `bak'" >>>>> = noi di as text "bak is 0" >>>>> bak is 0 >>>>> - replace `var' = 1 in `i' >>>>> = replace cats = 1 in 2 >>>>> Obs. nos. out of range >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This makes no sense at all to me. >>>>> >>>>> In the first line, it successfully uses the value of cats of >>>>> observations number 2 to define the local bak as 0. >>>>> >>>>> Few lines later, it acts as if there was no more observations number 2 >>>>> and cannot replace the number of cats with 1 in observation number 2. >>>>> >>>>> Why does it say Obs. nos. out of range ? >>>>> >>>>> regards, stefan bernhard, >>>>> * >>>>> * 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/ >>> * >>> * 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/ > * > * 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/

**References**:**st: Unreasonable error "Obs. nos. out of range"***From:*Stefan Bernhard <[email protected]>

**Re: st: Unreasonable error "Obs. nos. out of range"***From:*Nick Cox <[email protected]>

**Re: st: Unreasonable error "Obs. nos. out of range"***From:*Stefan Bernhard <[email protected]>

**Re: st: Unreasonable error "Obs. nos. out of range"***From:*Nick Cox <[email protected]>

**Re: st: Unreasonable error "Obs. nos. out of range"***From:*Stefan Bernhard <[email protected]>

- Prev by Date:
**st: Probit with endogenous interactions** - Next by Date:
**st: Date variable not working** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Unreasonable error "Obs. nos. out of range"** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: Unreasonable error "Obs. nos. out of range"** - Index(es):