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 > parameter. I agree, though, that if there is no compelling > practical need, we should keep it simple. Could be in that case, > though, that it might be better to pull DiscreteDistribution out of > the hierarchy and have its probability functions take ints rather > than doubles. IIRC, I argued for that years ago, but others thought > it better to go with a single-rooted hierarchy. > > Phil >
Having a class parameter for the domain of a distributions doesn't seem to be unatural, but I also think that it makes things too complicated. Maybe the HasDensity interface has been dropped for that reason. Looking at the function interfaces in the analysis package shows that a multi-rooted approach works fine. Regarding IntergerDistribution I don't have a preference on leaving it in the current hierarchy or making it to a new root. Christian -- View this message in context: http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/math-Distributions-over-sample-spaces-other-than-R-tp3931349p3938185.html Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
