Re: st: RE: macro of macros?

[Maria Ana Vitorino <vitorino@wharton.upenn.edu>]

thanks. That is indeed a simple solution to this problem. I usually  
try to avoid using #delimit  because I like to paste parts of the code  
into the command window directly and that cannot be done when  
#delimit  is used. But in this case there may not be a way around it...
Thanks again,
Ana

On Nov 6, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Nick Cox wrote:

> That strikes me as being a question about laying out your code. You  
> can use multiline definitions in conjunction with #delimit ; .
>
> Nick
> n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk
>
> Maria Ana Vitorino
>
> ok. so maybe I wasn't clear....
>
> What Tirthankar suggested (which is below) works fine but the problem
> is that it's not very easy to read what are the different sets used in
> the estimation, i.e. the first line inTirthankar's suggested code can
> get very long and hard to read if one has many different
> specifications with many variables.
> So, what I was trying to do was to define the different sets in
> separate lines so that it's easier to read and make changes. What you
> proposed in the previous response works well but may be prone to
> errors so I was wondering if there was a way around that.
> Is it more clear what I'm looking for now? Any help is appreciated.
>
> Tirthankar's suggestion:
>
> local rhssets ""x1 x2" "x4 x5" "x2 x6""
> local counter = 1
>
> foreach x of local rhssets {
> 	reg y `x'
> 	predict yhat`counter'
> 	local counter = `counter' +1
> }
>
> Your suggestion:
> local index
> local set1 "x1 x2"
> local index `index' 1
> local set2 "x2 x3"
> local index `index' 2
>
> foreach i of local index {
> 	reg y xvars `set`i''
> }
>
> Ana
>
> On Nov 6, 2011, at 10:29 AM, Nick Cox wrote:
>
> > You can do what Tirthankar showed you just recently. In many ways
> > it's a better method. For reasons that weren't clear to me it seemed
> > that you wanted something different.
> >
> > You might find these tutorials useful:
> >
> > SJ-3-2  pr0009  . . . . . . . . . . . . . Speaking Stata:  Problems
> > with lists
> >       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> > N. J. Cox
> >       Q2/03   SJ 3(2):185--202                                 (no
> > commands)
> >       discusses ways of working through lists held in macros
> >
> > SJ-2-2  pr0005  . . . . . .  Speaking Stata:  How to face lists with
> > fortitude
> >       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> > N. J. Cox
> >       Q2/02   SJ 2(2):202--222                                 (no
> > commands)
> >       demonstrates the usefulness of for, foreach, forvalues, and
> >       local macros for interactive (non programming) tasks
> >
> > Nick
> > n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk
> >
> > Maria Ana Vitorino
> >
> > Thanks Nick. This is very helpful.
> > This requires that every time I add a set I have to include two
> > additional lines and to make sure that the name of the set is in line
> > with the index. Using the example again,
> >
> > If I add another set, say set 4 I need to do:
> >
> > local set4 "x5 x6"
> > local index `index' 4
> >
> > but suppose that what I do (by mistake) is
> >
> > local set4 "x5 x6"
> > local index `index' 3
> >
> > Any chance I can add another set in such a way that these types of
> > mistakes won't happen?
> > Thanks!
> > Ana
> >
> >
> > On Nov 6, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Nick Cox wrote:
> >
> > > Wildcards are for variable names only. But you don't need any such
> > > device here. There are various ways to approach what you want.
> > > Here's one:
> > >
> > > local index
> > > local set1 "x1 x2"
> > > local index `index' 1
> > > local set2 "x2 x3"
> > > local index `index' 2
> > >
> > > foreach i of local index {
> > > 	reg y xvars `set`i''
> > > }
> > >
> > > Nick
> > > n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk
> > >
> > > Maria Ana Vitorino
> > >
> > > I've only recently started experimenting with macros and I have the
> > > following question: can we have a macro of macros and loop through
> > > the
> > > different sub-macros without having to set beforehand  how many sub-
> > > macros there are in the macro? Maybe it's easier to understand what
> > > I'm looking for with an example:
> > >
> > > I know that the following can be done:
> > >
> > > local set1 "x1 x2"
> > > local set2 "x2 x3"
> > > local sets ""`set1'" "`set2'""  ***
> > >
> > > foreach xvars of local sets {
> > > reg y xvars
> > > }
> > >
> > > But, instead of having to list all the macros in the line ***, can  
> > > we
> > > have something like:
> > >
> > > local set1 "x1 x2"
> > > local set2 "x2 x3"
> > >
> > > local sets ""`set'*""
> > >
> > > foreach xvars of local sets {
> > > reg y xvars
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > Ideally I would like to add (or remove) sets as a please so I
> > > wouldn't
> > > like to have to keep updating the line *** everytime I do so...
>
> *
> *   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/