Kit deleted the posting by Shihe Fan to which
my posting was the reply. Shihe's posting was clearly
about Stata. Despite the name of the thread, Shihe
made a comment picking up something Bobby Gutierrez
said (about -xtmixed-, a Stata command).
The story with Mata is indeed different and something
like tracing I presume to be a matter Mata masters
and mistresses will have on their amenda. In fact, it is
surely a priority for MataCorp.
Nick
[email protected]
Kit Baum
> Nick said
>
> If I understand this correctly, you need to find out
> about -set trace-.
>
> . set trace on
>
> sets tracing of commands so that you can see where
> in the code a command failed. Tracing can be tuned
> in various ways.
>
> I don't know anything about SAS, but if your ideal
> is equivalent to
>
> error 198;
> at line ... of -foobar-
> -foobar- was called from line ... of -whizzbang-
> -whizzbang- was called from line ... of -bushranger-
> ...
>
> well, that's another style, and ultimately equivalent
> to Stata's style.
Kit Baum
> Not quite. If in an ado-file you give the command
>
> mata: myfunc("arguments")
>
> and some error arises in myfunc, you just get an abort. You are not
> told where within myfunc (or where within whatever Mata function
> myfunc might call) the error occurs in any useful way. The example
> that provoked this thread included a stack trace through
> several Mata
> functions, but the information about where in the ultimate module
> (xtm_mixed_ll_uu()) the abend occurs is, regrettably, not available.
*
* 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/
