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: Levelsof for more than one Variable
From
Nick Cox <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: Levelsof for more than one Variable
Date
Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:52:47 +0000
As a kind of meta-comment I recommend against the use of "unique" in
this context.
"Unique" means occurring once only. It's a good word, and best left to
mean that, as your school teachers may have urged. For example,
"StataCorp is a unique company". Very true (if also trite).
Naturally, some might want to start the age-old discussion of whether
usage sanctifies abuse of etymology. But even descriptively-inclined
dictionaries don't seem to sanction the sense of this word "unique" as
meaning "distinct", which I suggest is a much better word than
"unique" for this purpose.
My guess is that the popularity of "unique" in this meaning stems
partly from Unix utilities such as -uniq-, which removes copies from a
list and leaves one and one copy of each distinct item as a result.
Thus
a a a b b c
would be reduced to
a b c
by such utilities.
Here uniqueness defines each item in the result, not each item in the
argument. My guess is that many software developers encountered such
utilities such as -uniq- in their youth and that had a greater
influence on them than their English dictionaries (if they had one) or
their English teachers (if they paid them much attention).
I have a long-term plan to persuade StataCorp of this too. See also
SJ-8-4 dm0042 . . . . . . . . . . . . Speaking Stata: Distinct observations
(help distinct if installed) . . . . . . N. J. Cox and G. M. Longton
Q4/08 SJ 8(4):557--568
shows how to answer questions about distinct observations
from first principles; provides a convenience command
I can't speak authoritatively on languages other than English -- "not
even", some might think -- so not mentioning them means only that.
Nick
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Maarten Buis <[email protected]> wrote:
> // collect the values
> levelsof var1, locals(loc1)
> levelsof var2, locals(loc2)
>
> // stack the macros
> // NOTICE: no "=" sign
> local loc "`loc1' `loc2'"
>
> // get rid of the duplicates
> local loc : list uniq loc
>
> For more see: -help extended_fcn- and especially -help macrolists-
>
> Hope this helps,
> Maarten
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Roberto Liebscher
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I have two variables both containing string values. I would like to get all
>> unique values (not the number of unique values) from these two variables
>> jointly.
>>
>> For example if I enter
>>
>> levelsof var1, locals(loc1)
>> levelsof var2, locals(loc2)
>>
>> I obtain all unique values of var1 and all unique values of var2. But at the
>> end I would like to have one local containing only unique values in loc1 AND
>> loc2.
>>
>> Is there anyone who can help me with this?
*
* 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/