Re: st: Stata 11 v Stata 12: difference in batch mode behaviour

[Billy Schwartz <wkschwartz@gmail.com>]

Phil,

Just out of curiosity, care to share your wrapper? Is it a bash script?


On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Phil Schumm <pschumm@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
> On Oct 5, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Dave Ewart wrote:
> > I noticed when testing Stata 12 that a previously-working batch job was failing.
> >
> > The old job was launched as follows:
> >
> >    stata11 -b something.do
> >
> > and it put correct output into something.log
> >
> > But,
> >
> >    stata12 -b something.do
> >
> > fails and puts output like the following into an output logfile called stata.log:
> >
> >       . doedit something.do
> >       unrecognized command:  doedit
> >       r(199);
> >
> > Very strange?  It's launching 'doedit' against the supplied DO file?
>
>
> I can't explain why this change was made, but I can confirm that it was also made in Stata for OS X.  FWIW, I use a thin wrapper to call Stata in batch mode; this is because Stata on OS X (in batch mode) doesn't yield a non-zero return code following an error, and the wrapper addresses that problem.  When I upgraded to Stata 12, I modified that wrapper to insert "do" automatically when Stata is called with a single do-file name.
>
>
> -- Phil
>
>
> *
> *   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/