Edwin Leuven
> > 2. It would mean that to parse command lines
> > properly Stata would have to peek inside the
> > command being called to see how that command wants to
> > treat its input. Without exaggeration, this would
> > violate the whole way Stata is constructed
> > in terms of division of responsibilities.
>
> "violate the whole way..." seems a bit melodramatic for
> describing a small
> addition to the parser
>
> but when we talk about changing -list- and adding useless
> separators to the
> output, now that violates the whole way stata *used to be*
> constructed
Melodramatic or not, I really do want to underline
that small though your suggestion may
seem, it would imply a fundamental change
in how Stata operates, and one that is on a
quite different level from the cosmetics of
output.
David Kantor's suggestion
> It seems to me that what you want is for
> the calling environment -- not the
> called ado -- to dictate whether to prevent
> substitution. (It there
> already something like that?) Suppose there
> were a -nosubst- command
> prefix. Then you would call myado thus:
> nosubst myado [...other elements and options...]
> And there would be nothing special about how
> myado was written.
is closer to Stata philosophy. Its usefulness
and practicality do seem open to discussion.
Nick
[email protected]
*
* 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/
