Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On the basis of the KISS principle, I still think that the change is
> reasonable.
> The strongest argument against it is based on a construction that is
> currently impossible since it assumes a yet non-existent "nextSample()"
> method. After that other issue (
Hello.
On the basis of the KISS principle, I still think that the change is
reasonable.
The strongest argument against it is based on a construction that is
currently impossible since it assumes a yet non-existent "nextSample()"
method. After that other issue (MATH-310) is resolved, we can come ba
I think we had that discussion. I provided examples of other packages
considered sampling to be a key property of a distribution, how users
of these packages expected to be able to sample from distributions.
Others concurred. You vetoed the contribution.
Doesn't bother me that much pers
Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> Hello.
>
>> Hmm... no this is not dependent on CM. This is an example that I wrote in 3
>> minutes to illustrate the point.
>>
>> I think the confusion is that I assumed that commons.math distributions
>> supported sampling. I don't think that capability is available eve
Hello.
> Hmm... no this is not dependent on CM. This is an example that I wrote in 3
> minutes to illustrate the point.
>
> I think the confusion is that I assumed that commons.math distributions
> supported sampling. I don't think that capability is available even now
> (although a user contri
Hmm... no this is not dependent on CM. This is an example that I wrote in 3
minutes to illustrate the point.
I think the confusion is that I assumed that commons.math distributions
supported sampling. I don't think that capability is available even now
(although a user contributed patches months
Hello.
> Here is one. The goal is to provide an over-dispersed exponential
> distribution which is defined as an exponential distribution with a prior
> distribution on the lambda parameter.
>
> /**
> * Sample from an exponential distribution whose parameter is distributed
> according
> * to a
Making these immutable will be a real pain as demonstrated by the
over-dispersed exponential example. In particular, to maintain performance,
it would require that all constructors be arranged to allow injection of a
random number generator. Management of that would be a nasty code issue.
Better
Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> Hi.
>
>>> > I don't see any changes proposed.
>>>
>>>
>>> I propose to use the instance variable in place of the accessor.
>>>
>>>
>>> > I see a couple of statements that getters are used (usually considered
>>> > good), and a question about over-riding.
>>>
>>>
>>> Get
luc.maison...@free.fr wrote:
> - "Gilles Sadowski" a écrit :
>
>> Hello.
>>
>> I'm ready to make the changes proposed in
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-348
>
> Hi Gilles,
>
> Sorry, I forgot to comment on the issue. I agree with you, go ahead with the
> changes.
>
+0
So
Here is one. The goal is to provide an over-dispersed exponential
distribution which is defined as an exponential distribution with a prior
distribution on the lambda parameter.
/**
* Sample from an exponential distribution whose parameter is distributed
according
* to a Gamma distribution.
*/
> > Can you imagine a not contrived example? I.e. why would one inherit from a
> > class while throwing away the implementation?
>
> It's precisely to keep the implementation that the parent needs to use
> the getter.
>
> If the parent does not use the getter, then the sub-class will have to
> r
Hi.
> Well, the exponential, chi^2 and Maxwell-Boltzman distributions are all
> specializations of the gamma distribution.
>
> If you working on a Monte-carlo estimate where the parameters of your chi^2
> distribution vary according to a hyper-distribution, then it would be nice
> to implement th
Well, the exponential, chi^2 and Maxwell-Boltzman distributions are all
specializations of the gamma distribution.
If you working on a Monte-carlo estimate where the parameters of your chi^2
distribution vary according to a hyper-distribution, then it would be nice
to implement the chi^2 distribut
On 05/03/2010, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> Hi.
>
>
> > > > I don't see any changes proposed.
> > >
> > >
> > > I propose to use the instance variable in place of the accessor.
> > >
> > >
> > > > I see a couple of statements that getters are used (usually considered
> > > > good), and a qu
Hi.
> > > I don't see any changes proposed.
> >
> >
> > I propose to use the instance variable in place of the accessor.
> >
> >
> > > I see a couple of statements that getters are used (usually considered
> > > good), and a question about over-riding.
> >
> >
> > Getters are for accessing to e
On 05/03/2010, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> Hello.
>
>
> > I don't see any changes proposed.
>
>
> I propose to use the instance variable in place of the accessor.
>
>
> > I see a couple of statements that getters are used (usually considered
> > good), and a question about over-riding.
>
>
> Gette
Hello.
> I don't see any changes proposed.
I propose to use the instance variable in place of the accessor.
> I see a couple of statements that getters are used (usually considered
> good), and a question about over-riding.
Getters are for accessing to encapsulated data. Within the class itself
I don't see any changes proposed.
I see a couple of statements that getters are used (usually considered
good), and a question about over-riding.
What are you proposing?
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Gilles Sadowski <
gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I'm ready to make the cha
- "Gilles Sadowski" a écrit :
> Hello.
>
> I'm ready to make the changes proposed in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-348
Hi Gilles,
Sorry, I forgot to comment on the issue. I agree with you, go ahead with the
changes.
Luc
>
> Any objection?
>
> Best,
> Gilles
>
>
Hello.
I'm ready to make the changes proposed in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-348
Any objection?
Best,
Gilles
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h..
21 matches
Mail list logo
