Tuesday, March 07, 2006

st: RE: RE: RE: tabodds command with 'if' option

StataCorp made this decision some time ago and I see no chance of them reversing it.

There was some discussion in

SJ-3-2 pr0009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Speaking Stata: Problems with lists 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 Q2/02 SJ 2(2):202--222 (no commands) demonstrates the usefulness of for, foreach, forvalues, and local macros for interactive (non programming) tasks

Neither is an "official" statement, but nevertheless there they are.

Here are some extracts from the 2003 paper. This was my original text before translation from English into American. It naturally predates the introduction of Mata's -for-, which makes it even less likely that the old -for- will come back, Elvis-like.

============================================================================== If you used Stata 7, or some previous version, then quite possibly the demise of -for- will have been a small piece of bad news for you. Strictly, demise is as yet too strong a word. More precisely, -for- is no longer on display as part of the official Stata repertoire. The code is still there, and if you used -for- in your do files or programs they should still work in Stata 8: if they do not work, it will be for some other reason. But the on-line help and the manual entry have gone, so for either or both of those you must depend on whatever is accessible to you from previous versions. This is not prohibition, but it certainly amounts to discouragement. -for- is history, and you are best advised to make greater use of the alternatives, particularly if you imagine using Stata for some time to come. More than that, do not count on -for- as you knew it being around for ever, even undocumented or under version control. Why has this been done, particularly in view of Stata's longstanding commitment to maximising continuity from release from release? -for- has long served many users well. Some regard it as one of their favorite commands. But it has severe limitations, several of which were rehearsed in a previous column (Cox 2002) [cited above]. I will mention here just three. First, -for- was, frankly, idiosyncratic and did not mesh well with the rest of Stata. Particularly limiting was the fact that it could not make use of local or global macros in the ways that might be expected. There was no deep-seated bug here, and -for- was not behaving differently from other Stata commands in this respect; merely its behavior often clashed with users' preconceptions of how it should behave. Second, once -for- had been learned by many users, they often tried to build in multiple loops and multiple commands. For all sorts of reasons, this often did not work. -for- was just not strong enough to bear the weight which some users tried to put on it. This was not because the code was incompetently written; it is just too difficult a task to handle what were in one sense complete programs codified as just one command line. Even when -for- did work, the resulting code was often difficult to read, to understand or to revise. Users were thus being tempted into bad habits because of the features which -for- appeared to offer. Third, -for- was slow. Frequently that was not obvious to users because of the speed of Stata and of their computers, but -for- was implemented as interpreted code, thus imposing an overhead. One of the main characteristics of the new commands -foreach- and -forvalues- introduced in Stata 7 is that they are implemented as compiled code and so run much faster. -foreach- and -forvalues-, new in Stata 7, are now the main workhorses for looping through lists. If these are new to you, apart from the on-line help, see [P] foreach and [P] forvalues. You may need to supplement those with some reading on local macros, particularly within [U] 21. These references do not mean that you have to write Stata programs to be able to use these constructs. On the contrary, they are often used interactively and you can incorporate them in do files or code you run from the do file editor.

(Once again, what is a Stata program? Simply, whatever is defined by a Stata -program- command. [...])

For Stata programming, -while- was the main workhorse in previous versions, and it is still useful for some problems. For interactive use, -for- was the main workhorse in previous versions, but as said its use is now officially discouraged. ===================================================================

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

Visintainer, Paul > why is the -for- command being dropped? Obviously > -forval- and -foreach- are far more flexible, but the -for- > command is quite convenient in routine data manipulation and > analysis. Its a great way to introduce new students to > looping over numbers or variables. I would vote for retaining it.

Nick Cox > unless the user has an old version of Stata, no > on-line help is now available for -for-. > > For reasons documented elsewhere, -for- is in > essence deprecated. -forval- and -foreach- > should be considered preferable. Visintainer, Paul > > Assuming your data are set up appropriately, try: > > > > for num 1/5: tabodds case year [fweight=freq] if cat == X

* * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/


Tag:


Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

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