This executable-ado mismatch problem has been mentioned
several times on the list: if updating the executable
is impracticable, then it's probably best to refrain from
updating the ados. Note that this kind of problem can only get
worse if you get increasingly out of sync.
In this case, -for- now can't get past a -version 8.2-
statement, although I don't know why.
You might get better results with
version 5: for <whatever>
or
foreach v of var mf_* {
replace `v' = 0 if `v' ==. & (etype==1|etype==5)
}
or
mvdecode mf_* if etype == 1 | etype == 5, mv(0)
Nick
[email protected]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> Rene Boeheim
> Sent: 10 December 2003 14:45
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: st: version control
>
>
> Dear listers,
> I've just run into a peculiar problem with version-control
> and updated ado-files (Unix system and only the superuser
> has r/w permission...) (there was a similar problem last
> week with -ivreg-)
>
> ___
> .version
> version 8.0
>
> . update q
> (contacting http://www.stata.com)
>
> Stata executable
> folder: /usr/local/stata/
> name of file: stata-se
> currently installed: 24 Apr 2003
> latest available: 28 Oct 2003
>
> Ado-file updates
> folder: /usr/local/stata/ado/updates/
> names of files: (various)
> currently installed: 03 Dec 2003
> latest available: 03 Dec 2003
>
> * set missing to zero for non-relevant obs
> . for var mf_*: replace X=0 if X==. & (etype==1|etype==5)
> version 8.2 not supported
> r(9);
> ___
> it worked before the ado-update...
> should -for- (-forevery-) not check for the version of the
> executable?
*
* 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/
