RE: st: RE: macro of macros?

[Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>]

The first solution raises the question of how it is to be parsed later. 

With the second solution when Ana comes to go 

foreach part of local o { 

} 

"First" and "part" would be taken as separate words. 

Nick 
n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk 

Austin Nichols

Maria Ana Vitorino <vitorino@wharton.upenn.edu>:
I, too, prefer code I can cut and paste in one block into the command
window, so I use only * comments and collect long lines in macros; it
is easy enough to do something like:

loc o First part
loc o `o', second part
loc o `o', third part
di "`o'"

or

loc o First part
loc o `" "`o'" "second part" "'
loc o `" `o' "third part" "'
di `"`o'"'

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Maria Ana Vitorino
<vitorino@wharton.upenn.edu> wrote:
> 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/