On 7/21/11 6:53 PM, Greg Sterijevski wrote: >> >> +1 from me as well (does that even count?).
Thanks! And yes, "that counts" - in fact it carries a lot of weight because you have contributed more than anyone else to this area recently. We operate a "do-ocracy" here :) > As an aside, I believe we will be adding more exceptions. Yes. > The number of ways > to screw up a regression is limited only by the user's imagination. As we > finalize how we deal with obviously redundant regressors, that might be a > new exception as well. Perhaps we should think of the exceptions cleaving in > two planes. First would be input data problems. Second would be estimation > failure. That is a common pattern. The first kind will extend MathIllegalArgumentException (like RegressionModelSpecificationException). The second kind will depend on what exactly is failing. In some cases, it will be appropriate to propagate an exception from one of the other packages; in others we may want to define new exceptions specific to regression model estimation. Regarding obviously redundant regressors, it's probably in most cases better to include this information in results, rather than throwing exceptions, since in some cases users may want the (arguably bogus) parameter estimates when we can compute them. Phil > > -Greg > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
