Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: st: Convention for replacing an existing routine on SSC with a revision that has major syntax changes.
From
Nick Cox <[email protected]>
To
"'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
Subject
RE: st: Convention for replacing an existing routine on SSC with a revision that has major syntax changes.
Date
Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:16:00 +0100
Yes, that's it. The two versions can coexist with a branch on c(version). Or you can test for one syntax and given a syntax error allow a test for the other syntax.
Nick
[email protected]
Austin Nichols
David Elliott <[email protected]> :
If the original version does not use Mata, it may be version 8 compatible; see
ssc d ivreg28
for how the authors of ivreg2 differentiate the old and new versions.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:55 AM, David Elliott <[email protected]> wrote:
> The subject line above almost says it all.
>
> I have completely rewritten my file chunking routine -chunky- to use a
> different and far more efficient chunking strategy using Mata for the
> file I/O. It is basically a completely different program. I am
> currently calling it -chunky_mata- to during testing to distinguish it
> from -chunky- but it is my intent to completely supplant the original
> routine which, quite frankly, was an ugly kludge for which I am almost
> ashamed to claim ownership.
>
> The syntax has changed from:
> chunky using filename , index(#) chunk(#) saving(filename[, replace])
> to
> chunky using filename ,[ [peek(#) analyze] | [chunksize(#.#)
> header(string) stub(string) replace]
>
> What is the convention for replacing a routine that will "break" any
> previous programs written using it?
>
> I appreciate your guidance.
*
* 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/