this is a feature request for gretl 2.0: Even simple expressions aren't possible in loop conditions, for example: "loop for i=1..p-1" doesn't work, which inflates the trivial LOCs needed in gretl scripts.

Am 30.09.2010 15:01, schrieb Allin Cottrell: > On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Sven Schreiber wrote: > >> this is a feature request for gretl 2.0: >> >> Even simple expressions aren't possible in loop conditions, for example: >> "loop for i=1..p-1" >> doesn't work, which inflates the trivial LOCs needed in gretl scripts. > > Yes, that could be supported. In the meantime, you can use a > proper "for" loop if you want parsing of the conditions: > > loop for (i=1; i<=p-1; i++) > > See chapter 9 of the User's Guide. Also note that the syntax you > give above, "loop for i=1..p-1" is actually a (tolerated) error: > there shouldn't be any "for" in what the Guide calls an index > loop. > whoops, good to know... Ok, in principle gretl does everything one (I) needs. But maybe this pre-2.0 period is the right time to discuss this a little: * "i=1..p-1" has eight chars (but isn't working of course) * "(i=1; i<=p-1; i++)" has 16 chars That's double the other amount, not even counting blanks and if you leave out the "for" in the first version (which I never did so far) the difference gets bigger. Readability is also better in the first version IMHO, but that may be because I'm more used to it. However, "i++" is very C-ish und not very gretl-ish I dare to say (I know I can also write i+=1.). So I'm inclined not to withdraw that feature request.