commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark R. Diggory" <mdigg...@latte.harvard.edu>
Subject Re: [math] Questions regarding probability distributions
Date Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:36:57 GMT
I definitely against removing these implementations. These 
interfaces/implementations provide a a unique set of methods on that 
specific species of Gamma distribution that are required to configure 
and maintain that species of Gamma distribution.

Removing the underlying implementations and making a 
GammaDistributionImpl implement the ChiSquareDistibution interface is 
risky and difficult venture, there would be no way to enforce the 
"immutability" of the scale parameter required to maintain its 
"ChiSquareness".

-Mark

Kim van der Linde wrote:
> 
> 
> Phil Steitz wrote:
> 
>> Good point. I am +0 for dropping ChiSquaredDistributionImpl, but -1 
>> for exponential (because of efficiency).  Unless others object, I will 
>> make that change.  Thanks for pointing this out.
> 
> 
> I do not mind HOW it is in the package, but I would argue against an 
> option where the user has to know which parameters need to be fed to an 
> more general underlying distribution, especially when it is a common 
> used one such as chi-square. Unless of course, you want to limit this 
> package to a hard core public only.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Kim

-- 
Mark Diggory
Software Developer
Harvard MIT Data Center
http://www.hmdc.harvard.edu

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message