> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > >>>>> "AL" == Andy Liaw <Liaw> writes: > > AL> Might I suggest taking a poll (even though > unscientific) of how many people > AL> will be affected by a change in default RNG? My > totally arbitrary guess is > AL> very few, if any. > > But they may tend to be important (i.e. those with large stat software > projects/tools) doing heavy regression testing. >
But if those who want to use better RNG in R can now put RNGkind() in their .Rprofile, surely those who really need the old generator can do similar, if the default is changed? As Prof. Dalgaard said (privately), I don't think is that painful if the current default generator is kept as an option in RNGkind(). (I.e., all I'm asking is to change the default RNG, not getting rid of the current default.) Cheers, Andy > AL> If I'm not mistaken, Python had only recently changed > the default RNG to > AL> Mersenne-Twister. If Python can do it, I should > think R can, too, without > AL> too much pain... > > Depends on which L_p norm you measure pain by. > > best, > -tony > > -- > A.J. Rossini Rsrch. Asst. Prof. of > Biostatistics > U. of Washington Biostatistics > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > FHCRC/SCHARP/HIV Vaccine Trials Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------- http://software.biostat.washington.edu/ > ---------------- > FHCRC: M: 206-667-7025 (fax=4812)|Voicemail is pretty > sketchy/use Email > UW: Th: 206-543-1044 (fax=3286)|Change last 4 digits of phone to FAX > (my tuesday/wednesday/friday locations are completely unpredictable.) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
