That was Phil. (not that it matters) +1 for the idea of a default generator for all distributions that define a cumulative density.
+1 as well for specialized implementations where possible that over-ride the default generator even if it exists. I can't imagine much dispute on either of these points because they satisfy the general principle of doing the best we can for all cases as well as for special cases. I also completely agree with Mikkel with not understanding why the generation of deviates is separated from the distribution. On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Mikkel Meyer Andersen <m...@mikl.dk> wrote: > Ted, sorry hadn't seen your e-mail before sending mine. > > Yes, I agree in you point of having specialised good algorithms. But > in lack of such methods, I'd prefer being able to have a general > method, although it might be bad compared to a specialised one. > > 2009/10/27 Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>: > > Thanks. That's what I was missing. I would still rather see the > > implementations in the random package and for common distributions, > > e.g. Poisson, pick a method that is well-suited for the distribution. >
