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: bug in bs4rw (or bug in Stata?)
From
Nick Cox <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: bug in bs4rw (or bug in Stata?)
Date
Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:12:34 +0000
It's a fine point.
Stata is doing its best to diagnose the problem. If it was more
conservative, it would simply say "syntax error" and people would want
more detail. As it is, it tries to provide more detail, and it doesn't
always diagnose right.
In any case, what other interpretations would an isolated comma bear
-- given your -syntax- statement?
Nick
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Keith Dear <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nick: you say "-syntax- is not talking semantics, it is talking
> syntax", but it seems to me that although -syntax- may be *thinking*
> syntax, when it says "options not allowed" it is *talking* semantics,
> i.e. trying to be smart. It should say "comma not allowed" since that
> is the syntax error. But I accept this doesn't amount to a bug in
> Stata, and anyway the problem is really with bs4rw.
>
*
* 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/