Fred Wolfe
> >Note that you lose any sense of what the dependent
> variable is. Instead,
> >the log simply lists t-test after t-test. Is there any way
> we can bring
> >back some marker of the command Stata repeats?
>
> I have always thought Stata ought to have an -echo- option
> to deal with
> problem. But the best you can do is:
>
> foreach var of varlist a b c {
> di"`var'"
> test `var',by(catvar)
> }
>
> It is kind of a pain in the neck.
Fred is right: forget this when you need it,
and you pretty much have to repeat what you
did, in many circumstances.
There is another side to this, however, namely those
occasions in which you don't want a header,
or you want something other than the raw syntax.
That is, -for- provided a header, which
optionally you can switch off. What
it did was to echo the command.
-foreach- gives you no header by
default, but allows you to insert
your own header. As that gives you,
ultimately, more flexibility in terms of what you
get Stata to say and how it is presented, I
judge it on balance an improvement.
Suppose, for example, you want a header which
is in bold and shows not the variable name
but an informative variable label:
foreach v of var <varlist> {
di as res "{bf:`: variable label `v''}"
...
}
Fancier than you want for much interactive
work, no doubt, but a pointer to things very
difficult with -for-.
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/
