> Just to be sure: You propose to remove
> public void setDistribution(TDistribution value)
> Is this correct?
Yes.
> If so, another proposal - I'm not sure it's a clever one - is
>
> ---CUT---
> public TDistribution setDistribution(TDistribution value) {
> double n = value.getDegreesOfFreedom();
> if (n > 2) {
> n -= 2;
> }
>
> final TDistribution newDistribution = new TDistributionImpl(n - 2);
> distribution = newDistribution;
> return newDistribution;
> }
> ---CUT---
>
> So that the new instance gets returned. As mentioned, I'm not sure
> it's a good idea, but it would maintain the possibility to change
> distribution. I think I'd prefer deleting the setDistribution-method
> instead of this psudo-solution.
There would remain the problem that, if "value" was instantiated with the
other constructor:
---CUT---
public TDistributionImpl(double degreesOfFreedom, double inverseCumAccuracy) {
// ...
}
---CUT---
one could potentially have inconsistent behaviour since the
"inverseCumAccuracy" parameter cannot be recovered (it is only accessible
through a "protected" accessor method).
> TTestImpl: Would it be an idea to change the constructor to pass a
> double degreeOfFreedom instead of a TDistribution?
Yes, that would solve the problem.
Best,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
