Sometimes the 1st half of my code which is 1000 lines long and takes a
couple of minutes to compile produces those macros. I would hate to
rerun that code to test the later half of my code which is 200 lines
to produce the colorful output ( still a work in progress). That is
why I wish to save the macros.
Thank you,
Ashim.
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Nick Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
> Put it another way: I don't think I've ever seen this request before.
> That doesn't make it invalid, clearly.
>
> But what I think it does indicate is that portability depends on all the
> local macros you use being defined within one or more programs. It
> doesn't matter if you do that again and again within different programs,
> as the definitions are indeed local. That's why this isn't a perceived
> problem; programmers get used to defining all local macros they need
> within a program or do file. That means you can walk away from a dataset
> and next time re-run programs as desired.
>
> I also do define macros interactively, but any so defined are always
> transient.
>
> Nick
> [email protected]
>
> Ashim Kapoor
>
> yes I could do that ,but I felt people would be cleverer than I was
> and would be doing it in a quick slick fashion while i walked on
> slooooooooowly putting each local in 1 obs of a string variable while
> people were doing SAVE MACROS! and then RECOVER MACROS!
>
> I just wanted to know if someone did it better than I did. The notes
> way is clever I think.
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Philipp Rehm <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> True.
>> How about forcing it into a (string) variable? Even more tedious, but
>> perhaps a way to do it.
>>
>> Ph
>>
>> Nick Cox wrote:
>>>
>>> A matrix could not be used for macros with string content. (Strictly,
>>> all macros are strings, but clearly some have numeric content.)
>>> Nick [email protected]
>>> Philipp Rehm
>>>
>>> I think that's what do-files are for.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless: how about building up a matrix which contains the local
>>> macros you encounter, which you then save into a variable? You could
> then
>>> recover the local macros with -levelsof-, for example.
>>>
>>> But I guess a do-file is the more straightforward approach...
>>>
>>>
>>> Ashim Kapoor wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I somehow feel that you can save local macros in a way other than
>>>> using -notes- can you ??
>
> *
> * 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/
