Wednesday, March 22, 2006

RE: st: Naming convention, Ideas?

Thank you Nick(s)! I hadn't thought of the colon approach or the major minor subcommand route. And one module certainly *is* easier to maintain, document, and support.

I am glad I posted for a query I thought might seem trivial.


Nick Winter > Maybe something that works off the notion of "generalized." > > One option would be to use the prefix approach, to create a > syntax like: > > . genmanip : merge ... > > . genmanip : append ... > > and so on. Then you have only one .ado file to maintain, easily > allowing options that apply to your command (distinct from the > append, merge, etc. options), etc. > > See -help _on_colon_parse- for a Stata command that helps > parsing that syntax. > > I'm not sure -genmanip- is a great name, but something like that? > > --Nick Winter > > > > At 10:10 AM 3/22/2006, you wrote: > >I am looking into writing a suite of wrapper data management > >commands around merge, mmerge, append, joinby, and cross that can > >either take a stata data file, gzip compressed data file or simply a > >comma or tab delimited text file as the -using- argument, e.g. > ><cmd_name> using *.dta | *.dta.gz | *.dgz | *.txt | *.cvs [, * ]. > > > >Two questions: > >1) Any ideas w/ regard to a consistent naming convention that could > >be used? as I'd like to get it right the first time. I am not very > >fond of using an integer as a suffix a la cf2, cf3 for various > >reasons (e.g not very informative, unclear if integers imply > >incremental functionality, can conflict with others' names). So far > >I thought of: > > > >- mmergeplus, appendplus, joinbyplus (but rather long) > >- aappend, jjoinby, (but look like typos, besides mmerge > already exists) > > > >2) Would anyone find these useful, i.e. should they be posted on SSC?

* * For searches and help try: * * *


Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?