Ultraedit handles the delimiter matching issue perfectly...
HTH
Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gabi Huiber
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 10:50 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: st: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: List of ALL Commands
Having recently converted to using Notepad++ for editing my do-files,
I am sympathetic to Sergiy's quest for a comprehensive list for the
purpose of syntax highlighting.
I wonder if we could make it a community effort on somebody's website.
We could start with whatever getcmds turns up and add to the list as
fancy strikes. With enough participation, it might fill up pretty
quickly. Whatever word anybody tried to add to the list would go
through two checks: first, a simple duplicate check to ensure that
it's not there already; and second, if the first check is passed, a
tweak on Stata's "search" command to ensure that it's legitimate. This
tweak would return 1 and allow the addition if "search <word>, exact"
turned up a non-zero list of references -- e.g. search boxcox, exact
-- or 0 and reject the addition otherwise. Or we can base this check
on the "which" command, I don't know.
But my own biggest syntax highlighting concern isn't the command list.
I can add to that as my vocabulary expands. Rather, it's the proper
matching of delimiters. Nested macros like ${${foo}bar} or matrix
references like matrix[`i',`j'] -- as opposed to matrix[`i', `j'] with
a blank after the comma -- will throw off my Stata language definition
sheet (a work in progress based on the one Keith Kranker wrote).
Gabi
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
