Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Joseph Coveney
    replied
    David Airey already mentioned one of my my two perennials, menl. The other is strUnicode.

    Like Sergiy, I also have a few for Mata, the two highest on the list being namespace and an enhanced development environment (debugging now is pretty much limited to sprinkling the old printf("#2 Got this far!\n") or printf("Iteration = %3.0f, my_variable = %14.7f\n", i, my_variable) into the code). Bill Gould already mentioned StataCorp's plans for byte, int and long, so that's covered. I've encountered circumstances where the ability to confidently declare const would have been helpful, too. enum is pretty standard now, and it would be sweet to see it in Mata. But among this list, the most acute need I feel is for namespace.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sergiy Radyakin
    replied
    The list is endless really. Here are some features I wish:
    • source line numbers in error messages;
    • Intellisense in do-editor;
    • strip comments tool in do-editor;
    • default numeric type double instead of float;
    • ability to compile Mata targeting earlier versions;
    • some more flexibility with Mata functions/libraries (difficult to explain, communicated to StataCorp earlier).
    I'd also agree to same convenience as Richard has requested above:
    • Switch more on/off with a toolbar button or hot-key.
    • Switch trace on/off with a toolbar button or hot-key.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lance Erickson
    replied
    Originally posted by Richard Williams View Post
    I want the opposite of pause. Once a job is running, I want to be able to -set more off-. All too often I forget to do that before I start the job and then I have to either kill the job or keep clicking on more.
    Also not the best solution, but on a slower comupter, a double tap on the space bar will clear all the -more-s and let Stata run through all of the output. On a faster computer I have to hold the space bar down to get the same outcome. I've also noticed that if I already have a couple of spaces in the command line then I get the same result as if -set more- was -off-.




    Leave a comment:


  • David Lucido
    replied
    I feel that Stata's greatest limitation is the lack of any camera-ready output capabilities outside of graphics. I can't even count the number of table programs that produce TeX code which then has to be re-processed. I would hope Stata could produce an output system that allows for fonts, proportional spacing, styles etc. and which can create PDF, RTF or any other standard format. I am thinking of something like the Output Delivery System available in SAS.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dave Airey
    replied
    Stata 13 was the first version that I scratched my head about what I might want added. But here are some quick thoughts:
    • nonlinear mixed effects models (useful in Pharma)
    • integration with markdown
    • after R "rms" and JMP 11, regression modeling techniques to help build predictive models including Ridge, Lasso, adaptive Lasso, and Elastic Net
    • opacity choice in graphics

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Wells
    replied
    Originally posted by Richard Williams View Post
    I want the opposite of pause. Once a job is running, I want to be able to -set more off-. All too often I forget to do that before I start the job and then I have to either kill the job or keep clicking on more.
    Not a perfect solution Richard, but I find that -set more off, perm- gets around this problem as it set more off. i find it much more useful to have more off indefintely than the alternative. still i would like an on the fly set more on and off too

    Leave a comment:


  • Timothy Mak
    replied
    Thanks Bela. I didn't know about pause.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeph Herrin
    replied
    Some version of the -case- (also called -switch- or -select-) command that is available in other programming languages. I usually accomplish the same thing with either a series of -if- statements or set of nested -cond()- calls; neither is very easy to read.

    Leave a comment:


  • Richard Williams
    replied
    I want the opposite of pause. Once a job is running, I want to be able to -set more off-. All too often I forget to do that before I start the job and then I have to either kill the job or keep clicking on more.

    Leave a comment:


  • wbuchanan
    replied
    I would like to see more extensive documentation for the graphics back end to make it a bit easier for end-users to add to the visualization capabilities with greater ease. Another option that could be helpful is to develop interfaces for building interactive graphics using existing libraries (e.g., d3) to avoid reinventing the wheel.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daniel Bela
    replied
    Originally posted by Timothy Mak View Post
    On the topic of browse, I wish that Stata had retained the old (Stata 11 or before?) behaviour where executing browse pauses execution of codes. I used to put in browse statements in my codes for debugging, which I find very convenient. I can't do this anymore.
    Did you ever try pause? I find it very convenient, as it helps debugging much more than the old browse behaviour (i.e. inside of loops or between preserve and restore). Plus: it can be simply disabled once testing has finished using pause off.
    Code:
    pause on
    sysuse auto
    pause Check if dataset has been loaded correctly
    tabulate make in 1/5
    *...
    Regards
    Bela

    Leave a comment:


  • Timothy Mak
    replied
    On the topic of browse, I wish that Stata had retained the old (Stata 11 or before?) behaviour where executing browse pauses execution of codes. I used to put in browse statements in my codes for debugging, which I find very convenient. I can't do this anymore.

    Leave a comment:


  • Richard Williams
    replied
    Originally posted by Clyde Schechter View Post
    Sorry, hit Post Reply when I was aiming for Preview. Another example of uniformity would be if we could just use -,eform- to get exponentiated coefficients in all regression model output (perhaps still retaining the more specific options -or-, -irr- that do this for specific models as well).
    I like the eform option too. The main counter-argument may that forcing you to use the "right" names also forces you to understand why the same transformation is considered an odds ratio in one statistical technique but an incident rate ratio in another.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elan Cohen
    replied
    Hopefully this is an easy implementation, but I would love a sepby option for browse just as there is for list. My first thoughts were either a darker/bolder line for separation, or alternate background shading.

    Leave a comment:


  • Clyde Schechter
    replied
    Sorry, hit Post Reply when I was aiming for Preview.

    Another example of uniformity would be if we could just use -,eform- to get exponentiated coefficients in all regression model output (perhaps still retaining the more specific options -or-, -irr- that do this for specific models as well).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X