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 (MATH-310) is resolved, we can come back to > the feature described by Ted, and I'll be willing to change back again if > necessary.
I don't follow the nextSample() "issue". I see two arguments against the change, neither of which are strong enough to make me -1 or even -0: 1) The change will have to be undone in the future if the implementations change to not maintain the affected distribution parameters in fields (computing them instead from other internal state). Not a big deal at all. No impact to users and not that much work to change. 2) Subclasses that represent parametric state differently will no longer be able to depend on setters / getters. In theory, this could break some existing subclasses; but I do not have any specific or plausible examples to point to, so unless someone else does, I am not going to object to the change. This is especially unlikely in the cases (e.g. Cauchy) where usage is inconsistent. It is hard to see how subclass implementers could be depending on it. I agree in any case usage should be consistent, so +1 for the change. Phil > Is that OK? > > Best regards, > Gilles > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
