On 7/25/2014 8:48 AM, Maggie X wrote:
Thanks for looping me in, David! I don''t see Paul's email here though :)

Looks like a nice contribution. Is it going to involve PDL?


Best,
Maggie

Addresses (including mailing list) added to the mail.

     -john





On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:14 AM, David Mertens <dcmertens.p...@gmail.com <mailto:dcmertens.p...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    Hey Paul,

    Maggie Xiong, the author of PDL::Stats
    <http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdl-stats/>, may have an interest
    in this work, and may also have a recommendation for a name. I've
    CC'd her to help with any ensuing conversation. :-)

    David


    On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:12 PM, John M Gamble <jgam...@ripco.com
    <mailto:jgam...@ripco.com>> wrote:

        On 7/22/2014 11:55 PM, Paul Bennett wrote:

            I'm in the process of writing a Perl module that provides
            a practical
            implementation of the statistics language described at
            http://ashishagarwal.org/2011/10/04/pdf-type-theory/ which
            would
            compile programs in that language to Perl objects that provide
            ->pdf($n), ->cdf($n), and ->rand() methods (providing the
            probability
            density at $n, the cumulative probability for $n, and a
            random number
            generated by a given script in that language, respectively).

            Right now, I'm pondering the name
            Statistics::Language::BAVC (the
            initials of the authors of the paper).

            If anyone's got any better ideas, now's your chance to
            speak up.


        I've just skimmed the paper. Even though they don't have a
        name for their own technique, it seems risky to just name it
        out of the blue.

        Have you tried contacting the authors and asking if they've
        come up with a term?

        I agree that Statistics::Language is probably the prefix to
        use for your module.

             -john




-- "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
      Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
      by definition, not smart enough to debug it." -- Brian Kernighan



Reply via email to