Re: st: Stata 13 wishlist

[William Buchanan <william@williambuchanan.net>]

If it's only a single test, why not write the .ado yourself and then add it to the ssc? I've no experience in survival analysis and this might be a bit naive of a response, but I would think you could probably use the code in R as a guide relatively easily.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 9, 2013, at 17:08, Adam Olszewski <adam.olszewski@gmail.com> wrote:

> My wish for Stata13: Gray's test as an option for -sts test- (or a
> separate command!), so I can stop exporting datasets to R to do one
> test!
> AO
> 
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Friedrich Huebler <fhuebler@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is not the same as having a single -graph- command but everything
>> done in the Graph Editor is reproducible by command syntax with the
>> -gr_edit- command.
>> 
>> . sysuse auto
>> . graph bar rep78 headroom
>> . gr_edit plotregion1.bars[1].style.editstyle shadestyle(color(gs10)) editcopy
>> 
>> To identify the text that goes after -gr_edit- do the following:
>> 
>> - Start the Graph Editor.
>> - Start recording.
>> - Make changes to the graph.
>> - Stop recording and save the recording in a grec file.
>> - Open the grec file in a text editor.
>> 
>> Friedrich
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I have already asserted that
>>> 
>>> "All graph users would like to see a single -graph- command that would
>>> produce the final graph, but I gather that's not possible in general."
>>> 
>>> I think StataCorp are, if possible, even keener than we are on the
>>> principle that what is done is reproducible by command syntax.
>>> 
>>> But it's my understanding from comments by StataCorp developers -- at
>>> users' meetings and elsewhere -- that there are good (i.e. compelling)
>>> reasons for the present situation, for example that some changes
>>> appear to be possible via the Graph Editor that are not available via
>>> the command syntax.
>>> 
>>> Clearly I don't speak for StataCorp and certainly can not, and do not,
>>> rule out the possibility that rewriting some of the code will solve
>>> this problem, but if guesses are allowed I imagine that to be
>>> unlikely.
>>> 
>>> Nick
>> *
>> *   For searches and help try:
>> *   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
>> *   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/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/faqs/resources/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/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/