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: Problems with mata:st_view and syntax
From
Nick Cox <[email protected]>
To
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject
Re: st: Problems with mata:st_view and syntax
Date
Sun, 21 Jul 2013 11:53:19 +0100
That link points to a different thread.
Nick
[email protected]
On 21 July 2013 11:26, daniel klein <[email protected]> wrote:
> We discussed the behavior of view matrices about two moth ago starting
> here: http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2013-05/msg00893.html
>
> You can savely irnogre my contibution to that discussion as it turns
> out most of it is merely wrong and none of it helps you with the
> problem. I do not believe Sergiy found a "solution" other than keeping
> this behavior in mind and set up new matices whenever you change the
> underlying dataset. So I guess the answer to your question is: no, you
> cannot avoid this behavior.
>
> Best
> Daniel
>
> --
> The first one is about mata:st_view. Consider the following STATA code:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> clear
> clear mata
> set obs 5
> gen a=1
> gen b=2
> gen c=3
> mata: st_view(X=., ., "a c")
> mata: X /* ---> Correctly shows column a and c */
> drop b
> mata: X /* ---> Showing column a and empty column! */
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I expect the sub_view X wouldn’t change (still a and c) after I
> dropped column b.
> However, somehow dropping b would affect the sub_view X.
> Is there a way to avoid this behaviour?
>
> *
> * 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/