Antonio, Fabio Di Narzo <antonio.fabio <at> gmail.com> writes: >
I agree that quantitative differences in speed can make a qualitative difference in the way one works. Well, I'm somewhat interested, but don't feel that I'm necessarily appropriate as a mentor. I don't think it would be terrible if you contacted particular people (Gelman, Plummer, O'Hara?) to see if they were interested ... they could always say no ... > > > > Something I would love to see done (not that I have the time > > and energy to supervise someone to do it right now) would be > > an R (or Python/etc.: R wouldn't necessarily be the best tool) > > to translate lmer/nlme syntax (Wilkinson-Rogers with extensions > > for specifying random factors, correlation structures, etc.) > > into a BUGS file. It strikes me that it would be a really nice > > way to bridge the gap between what mixed-model code can do > > and what requires BUGS/MCMC. Such models could also serve as > > (1) a way to cross-check the results of mixed model code; > > (2) a way to get started in relaxing the assumptions of mixed > > models (e.g. allowing for non-normal random effects distributions). > > That sounds interesting. However, I currenlty don't have enough > know-how to work at something like it now. Do you think so? I don't think it would be too hard, if you were interested ... Ben ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
