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 ago to do that). My example is geared towards that. The problem is probably mine. I haven't been using commons math since the Mahout project decided that it wasn't usable for our needs and I assumed that this basic capability was available. If distributions are viewed only as a pure function that computes the density and cumulative distribution function, then what I say has no utility, but then again, without sampling distributions are also much less useful. On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Gilles Sadowski < gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > I must say that I don't understand the example. > Is it based on anything in CM? I don't see a method "next()" anywhere... > You say that it can't be done with an immutable super-class but nothing is > mutable in the above (or is it precisely "next()" that is altering the > content of the undefined "Gamma" class?). > I don't understand why the "wrapped" variable has an overridden > "getAlpha()" > since it actually returns 1 and it is the first parameter passed to the > constructor (which is what the accessor in the base class is supposed to > return). > All of this is quite unclear to me, so that I can't even judge what > functionality would be useful (and how it could perhaps be achieved in some > other way). Maybe it would make more sense if I could run a working > example. > -- Ted Dunning, CTO DeepDyve
