Phillip Ryan wrote:
> I ran Joseph's code against Clive's data and it appeared to deliver what
> Clive wants (if I understand Clive correctly).
>
> Clive, did you -list- the data resulting from Joseph's code with the
> -nolabel- option, to show the real, underlying form of the data ?
[...]
Yes, that worked:
. list part* in 1/20, nolabel
+-----------------------------------+
| party1 party2 party3 party4 |
|-----------------------------------|
1. | 3 1 2 4 |
2. | 3 1 2 4 |
3. | 3 2 1 4 |
4. | 3 2 1 4 |
5. | 3 1 2 4 |
|-----------------------------------|
6. | 3 2 1 4 |
7. | 3 4 1 2 |
8. | 3 1 4 2 |
9. | 3 2 1 4 |
10. | 3 2 1 4 |
|-----------------------------------|
11. | 3 4 1 2 |
12. | 3 4 1 2 |
13. | 1 3 4 2 |
14. | 1 3 2 4 |
15. | 1 3 2 4 |
|-----------------------------------|
16. | 3 1 2 4 |
17. | 1 3 4 2 |
18. | 3 2 1 4 |
19. | 1 4 3 2 |
20. | 1 4 3 . |
+-----------------------------------+
