Surely I can use the macros and the data independently of my code.
For example, my code may have an algorithm deciding a buy or a sell
level for a stock. Now this is stored in the macros and the datafile.
I do want people to see the buy or sell levels. I dont want them
seeing the do file.
I hope I am clear now.
Thank you,
Ashim.
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Nick Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
> This isn't clear to me either. There is no "using the macros and the
> dataset to print the output" independently of code containing the
> macros.
>
> My comment on payment was facetious, if not rhetorical. I am sorry you
> didn't realise that.
>
> However, I do feel much more reluctance to help other people develop
> code that is going to be not only private but proprietary. Why should I
> do that? I would much rather feel that in principle I was contributing
> to something easily accessible. Stata isn't incompatible with users
> writing Stata code for private or institutional gain, clearly, but
> Statalist does function best when closest to full and free exchange of
> information.
>
> As for my own work, I regard putting ideas, discussion and tested code
> in the public domain as one of the best things I can do for my
> university. It's an obligation of mine to spread my work!
>
> As far as your problem is concerned, I think you are in a cleft stick of
> your own devising, as the secrecy you feel compelled to seek prevents
> you making really clear in Stata terms what your problem is.
>
> These are personal views. Others must speak for themselves.
>
> Nick
> [email protected]
>
> Ashim Kapoor
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> I don't think I was clear. Here is what I do :
> 1. Run sometests and produce local macros and a small output dataset.
> 2. Use the macros and dataset to print the output.
>
> so (2) is ALL I want any1 to see. I am not worried about encrypting
> the local macros, only that I can't let anyone else see the do file i
> am running to produce my macro.
>
> Is'nt is much easier to save the macros / save the dataset and send it
> to someone to see the output whethere in HTML or smcl.
> Why risk someone decrypting my file ?
>
> It's not even my IDEA, I just program it but I don't think my boss
> will like it if i put it on the internet.
>
> Is'nt everyone who comes to this list working for a company or a
> university ? Would'nt their university be really upset if they gave
> out their bosses unpublished work on the internet and fire them on the
> spot ? Do those people pay for these services ? Oh, A small number of
> times I have answered questions, should I expect to be paid for that ?
>
> Thank you,
> Ashim.
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Nick Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sorry, Ashim, but I really don't understand your comments here.
>>
>> First off, local macros are useless unless used in some code. Whether
>> that use is interactive, via a do file, or via a program is up to you.
>>
>> If you want to be absolutely sure that certain collaborators, and only
>> those collaborators, see that code, then you need to send it
> encrypted.
>> That would apply to a do file or a program, and does not _itself_ rule
>> out do files.
>>
>> Second, saving macros in the data file runs into the same issues. You
>> would need to encrypt that too, as any Stata user with the same
> version
>> could in principle read your data file too.
>>
>> In short, wanting absolute security seems to me orthogonal to all
> other
>> details here.
>>
>> For myself, I always remember what Howard Aiken said. Don't worry
> about
>> people stealing your ideas; if they're any good, you will have to ram
>> them down their throats.
>>
>> Nick
>> [email protected]
>>
>> P.S. If you are developing proprietary code, why do you expect free
>> help? Shouldn't you offer to pay us?
>>
>> Ashim Kapoor
>>
>> Well in my opinion the do file won't do. Simply because the 1st half
>> of my code is proprietary, I dont wnat any1 to see it. I do wnat them
>> to USE the local macros / dataset at the end of the 1st half. Maybe I
>> am more clear now.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Nick Cox <[email protected]>
> 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/
