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 without, I agree that two interfaces for the real domain are not necessary, and we should go for simplicity. For distributions not having a density, the implementation of density(double) could provide results being as meaningful as possible. It could return infinity (where the distribution has "discrete points" - as proposed by Sébastien on another thread http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/math-Continuous-Distribution-tp3950057p3950057.html) or something else seeming to be appropriate (where there is another reason for the actual density not to exist). The naming issue is still open. In my opion, a name containing the name of the distribution's domain (instead of a property) helps to avoid ambiguity and funny curiosities (A random sample of a normal distribution is associated with a *discrete* empirical distribution which approximately renders the according normal distribution. However, the sample's distribution would implement the interface for the real domain. Thus the interface for the integer domain should not have the name DiscreteDistribution.). Additionally, it would be easier to provide more roots if users require support for further domains (e.g. if a multidimension normal distribution shall be implemented). Christian -- View this message in context: http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/math-Distributions-over-sample-spaces-other-than-R-tp3931349p3994066.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
