Hi,
I'm picking up the discussion on the interface structure for distributions
again.
Now there is consensus on having separate roots for each domain: one for
real-valued distributions and one for integer distributions.
After thinking once more about distributions with densities vs. those
withou
Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> Maybe it would be best to eliminate IntegerDistribution then and
> merge Distribution and ContinuousDistribution, so we have two roots
> - DiscreteDistribution and ContinuousDistribution. The only reason
> really to have DiscreteDistribution is if we want to support
> dis
Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> I would say pull DiscreteDistribution out. That is where the
> difference really lies. I have thought about suggesting that we
> eliminate it altogether; but I still think there may be value in
> supporting discrete distributions over sample spaces that are not
> embedded
cwinter wrote:
>
> [...] Regarding IntergerDistribution I don't have a preference on leaving
> it in the current hierarchy or making it to a new root.
>
> Christian
>
Just now, while pulling inverseCumulativeProbability form
ContinuousDistribution up to Distribution
Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> On 10/28/11 9:31 PM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
>> Hi,
>> The following question might sound stupid, but occured to me while
>> thinking about MATH-692. So here goes. What was initially meant by
>> "Continuous Distribution" (as in AbstractContinuousDistribution) ?
>> My view
Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> The one exception is our own IntegerDistribution, which is arguably
> being forced into an unnatural structure because its sample space is
> being artificially extended to R. I am not sure how unnatural it
> would be to just have the probability functions take a class
> pa
