Dear Nick,
On reading and thinking about this again. I think example 1 is the
better example. In example 2 and 3 an AND of the inner and outer
conditions should apply as "usual". But I think I kind of get it now.
Thank you,
Ashim,
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Nick Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
> Further thoughts:
>
> Suppose _hypothetically_ that blocks
>
> if exp {
>
> }
>
> were to be interpreted observation by observation when <exp> in
> principle takes on a different value for each observation, as for
> example
>
> if varname == 2 {
>
> }
>
> Now
>
> 1. What happens if the data change during the { }, say some or all of
> the values of -varname- are changed, or -varname- is dropped?
>
> 2. What happens if you nest two or more of these say
>
> if varname == 2 {
> ...
> if anothervarname > 3 {
> ...
> }
> ...
> }
>
> Which observations are to be used in the inner loop?
>
> 3. What happens if we have two types of -if-s say
>
> if varname == 2 {
> ...
> ... if varname == 3
> ...
> }
>
> Which observations are to be used in the inner statement?
>
> In essence, the key point is that no language feature is totally
> independent of any others. It's not that it would be impossible to work
> out rules for these circumstances; it's just that I suspect that on
> balance they would bite users -- often with highly mysterious bugs --
> more than they helped them. Also, the more complicated code you wrote,
> the more likely you would be to get lost on what you are doing -- not
> that it's impossible now.
>
> Ashim in effect wants Stata to act as smartly as he can think when he is
> on form -- and so do we all. The trouble is that software has to be
> written that does not make too easy for us to do very weird stupid
> things by accident.
>
> Nick
> [email protected]
>
> Nick Cox
>
> Dear Ashim:
>
> You make the same point and you should not be surprised that my reply is
> the same. Sure, you find this "natural" but you did not design Stata.
> The ambiguity of
>
> if exp ...
>
> meaning one thing when the result of exp is a single true or false value
> and another thing when the result is a variable's worth is not in my
> view a desirable feature. What's much more important is that Bill Gould
> disagreed with you in 1985.
>
> Those of us who grew up with Fortran, C or similar languages I suggest
> find it natural that the expression in
>
> if exp {
>
> is single-valued. So, whose taste prevails?
>
> It may not help much now, but my prediction is that once you have been
> using Stata for 17 years, you will have come to agree with Bill Gould's
> decision. (It should take much less.)
>
> Nick
> [email protected]
>
> Ashim Kapoor
>
> Dear Nick,
>
> I think it is lacking because : it seemed to me that it is natural to
> think that
>
> if ( var1==2) {
>
> replace var2==3
> replace var3==4
>
> }
>
> in this case the program should be SMART enough to do the replacements
> in corresponding observations and not only work in the 1st
> observations,etc .
>
> I mean if someone DOES NOT know Stata (but he does know that each var
> in stata is a column vector ) and the 1st observation rule, what would
> he think on the FIRST look at this code. Surely it would seem that the
> changes would be made in the corresponding observations.
>
> Seems intuitive to me. And it has everyday use in my programming.
> Maybe for other reasons as you point out the people who programmed it
> did not let it work that way and they may be right.
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Nick Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This business of the two -if-s has confused many people.
>>
>> (Incidentally, I think -cond()- is a red herring as far as this
> question
>> is concerned. It is without doubt very useful, but it has no bearing
> on
>> the matter.)
>>
>> But what Ashim wants is, I think, not "in between" at all. He wants
> what
>> he calls Type 2 -- the -if- command -- to do the same as what he calls
>> Type 1 -- the -if- qualifier -- when both are based on tests on
>> variables.
>>
>> However, it doesn't, and no amount of hoping, wishing, pushing or
>> shoving will make it so -- apart from one borderline exception.
>>
>> His query raises the question of why Stata has the two constructs if
>> they are really identical. But they aren't.
>>
>> It often happens that people used to some construct in other languages
>> would like to see Stata behave that way, and vice versa, but that's
> the
>> way it is. If you go to users' meetings (e.g. today and tomorrow in
> San
>> Francisco), you can confront the developers and say "Why is Stata
>> designed like that?". Sometimes there is a compelling argument against
>> one syntax and for another; sometimes the answer is "We had to make a
>> choice, and we just liked that syntax". But no syntax can be based on
>> users knowing that they mean one thing in one context and one thing in
>> another. All syntaxes have to be based on the language implementation
>> having only one interpretation of what is meant.
>>
>> I have got to say, however, that the Stata documentation is not 100%
>> innocent here. If you look at -help ifcmd- it gives among other
> details
>>
>> =================
>> Typical use: Example 3
>>
>> program ...
>> ...
>> if x==1 local word "one"
>> else if x==2 local word "two"
>> else if x==3 local word "three"
>> else if x==4 local word "four"
>> else local word "big"
>> ...
>> end
>> ==================
>>
>> But this example is _only_ good programming style if -x- is a scalar.
>> (Arguably not even then, as a temporary name would be preferable.) And
>> that is not explained, or (to me) self-evident.
>>
>> Also, the fact that (again, for a variable x)
>>
>> if x == 1 ...
>>
>> will be taken as
>>
>> if x[1] == 1 ...
>>
>> is not explained in the help, although it is in [P] -if- and the FAQ
>> cited earlier in this thread. I think several people would find out
>> about this matter earlier and easier if the point were made in the
> help.
>>
>>
>> The borderline exception is thus that for a variable x
>>
>> if x == 1 ...
>>
>> is exactly equivalent to
>>
>> ... if x == 1
>>
>> if and only if you have a single-observation dataset.
>>
>> There are languages that support something like
>>
>> if x == 1 ...
>>
>> as equivalent to
>>
>> ... if x == 1
>>
>> -- doesn't SAS support something similar -- but that is in a context
>> that implies a loop over observations. Stata's way of supporting loops
>> over observations (think of the ways that -generate- and -replace-
> work)
>> is more usually implicit.
>>
>> As Ashim pointed out, Stata offers a concise alternative to
>>
>> replace j=2 if k==2
>> replace m=2 if k==2
>> replace n=2 if k==2
>>
>> It is
>>
>> foreach v of var j m n {
>> replace `v' = 2 if k == 2
>> }
>>
>> (Ashim's own code here is illegal, by virtue of his omitting "var".)
>>
>> Alternatively, you can go
>>
>> foreach v in j m n {
>>
>> Short of Stata re-inventing itself as an ultra-terse language like APL
>> or J either seems to me about as concise as anyone might want. I
> really
>> don't understand why Ashim wants a "better way". What could be better,
>> or how is this lacking?
>>
>> Nick
>> [email protected]
>>
>> Ashim Kapoor
>>
>> I realize that there are 2 kinds if's in Stata.
>>
>> Type 1 : would be something like replace j = 2 if k==2
>> here the replace in j would happen ONLY in the corresponding
>> observation of k. THIS IS WHAT I WANT.
>>
>> Type 2 : the programming if something like
>>
>> local j
>>
>> if `j'==2 {
>>
>> do something.
>>
>> }
>>
>> **************************************************************
>>
>> I guess I want to do something which is in between the above 2.
>>
>> I want to say the following : --
>>
>> replace j=2 if k==2
>> replace m=2 if k==2
>> replace n=2 if k==2
>>
>> in ONE shot.
>>
>> so I try : -
>> ************************************** Block A
>> if k==2 {
>> replace j=2
>> replace m=2
>> replace n=2
>> }
>> *********************************************
>> This does not work. Because k==2 would mean k==2 in ALL observations.
>> While I mean to say make j / m / n = 2 in those observations where k
>> is 2.
>>
>> How do I do this in a quick manner in Block A ?
>>
>> I understand that I can always do :-
>>
>> foreach var of j m n {
>> replace `var'=2 if k==2
>> }
>>
>> But is there a better way ?
>>
>> The reason I want this is the following : -
>>
>> I want
>>
>> if k==2 {
>> replace j=1
>> replace m=5
>> replace n=89
>> }
>>
>> so the above method fails as I do not have the SAME value 2 to be put
>> in each of j / m /n.
>>
>> Any slick way of doing this ?
>
>
> *
> * 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/
