On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 08:33:47AM +1000, Robert Layton wrote:
> In cases where it is ambiguous, I would be happy for a "er"
> convention, however if the algorithm is sufficiently named, stick with
> that.
+1
G
--
This S
On 1 April 2012 05:49, Olivier Grisel wrote:
> Le 31 mars 2012 18:46, Mathieu Blondel a écrit :
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Andreas
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi everybody.
> >> Lars pointed out to me in my PR on factor analysis,
> >> the class should be called FactorAnalyzer to be consist
Le 31 mars 2012 18:46, Mathieu Blondel a écrit :
>
> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Andreas wrote:
>>
>> Hi everybody.
>> Lars pointed out to me in my PR on factor analysis,
>> the class should be called FactorAnalyzer to be consistent
>> with the naming conventions.
>
>
> We should be careful
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Andreas wrote:
> Hi everybody.
> Lars pointed out to me in my PR on factor analysis,
> the class should be called FactorAnalyzer to be consistent
> with the naming conventions.
>
We should be careful of not creating our own terminology. Factor analysis
is a well
Hi everybody.
Lars pointed out to me in my PR on factor analysis,
the class should be called FactorAnalyzer to be consistent
with the naming conventions.
I haven't given the naming conventions much thought until now
but I think this would be worth discussing.
What is the actual naming convention?