On 9/22/11 3:02 AM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> As a side note, I notice now that "NonMonotonousSequenceException"
> is misnamed. It should be "NonMonotoneSequenceException." I think
> it would be good to fix that for 3.0.
> How about compromising on "NonMonotonicSequenceException"?
Fin
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 08:58:19AM -0500, Greg Sterijevski wrote:
> I agree with your assessment that having almost identical methods is a pain.
> However, without doing this I need to return a very complicated set of
> information from isMonotone to be able to construct the exception.
Yes, this w
I agree with your assessment that having almost identical methods is a pain.
However, without doing this I need to return a very complicated set of
information from isMonotone to be able to construct the exception.
As for catching the exception, I was under the impression that CM code never
catche
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 08:31:00PM -0500, Greg Sterijevski wrote:
> Any objections to fixing this?
Having a method
public static boolean isMonotone(double[] val,
OrderDirection dir,
boolean strict)
creates unnecessary duplicat
Either is fine by me... ;) In case my opinion was solicited.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Gilles Sadowski <
gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> > > >> As a side note, I notice now that "NonMonotonousSequenceException"
> > > >> is misnamed. It should be "NonMonotoneSequenceException." I t
> > >> As a side note, I notice now that "NonMonotonousSequenceException"
> > >> is misnamed. It should be "NonMonotoneSequenceException." I think
> > >> it would be good to fix that for 3.0.
How about compromising on "NonMonotonicSequenceException"?
Gilles
---
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 06:27:12PM -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 9/21/11 6:11 PM, Greg Sterijevski wrote:
> > One more question, there is a boolean argument called 'abort', what sense
> > does it make to keep checking an array given you have found one observation
> > which violates monotonicity? I
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 08:11:00PM -0500, Greg Sterijevski wrote:
> One more question, there is a boolean argument called 'abort', what sense
> does it make to keep checking an array given you have found one observation
> which violates monotonicity? I think abort is redundant and could be
> elimin
Hi.
>
> I do not understand why a non-monotone collection should throw a
> IllegalArgumentException...? There is nothing wrong with the argument, it
> just is not in corrected order. Wouldn't it be better to return a false?
>
> We have:
>
> if (!ok && abort) {
> thro
Any objections to fixing this?
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 9/21/11 6:11 PM, Greg Sterijevski wrote:
> > One more question, there is a boolean argument called 'abort', what sense
> > does it make to keep checking an array given you have found one
> observation
> > whi
On 9/21/11 6:11 PM, Greg Sterijevski wrote:
> One more question, there is a boolean argument called 'abort', what sense
> does it make to keep checking an array given you have found one observation
> which violates monotonicity? I think abort is redundant and could be
> eliminated. Thoughts?
Looks
One more question, there is a boolean argument called 'abort', what sense
does it make to keep checking an array given you have found one observation
which violates monotonicity? I think abort is redundant and could be
eliminated. Thoughts?
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> O
If there are no objections, I will move the body of the current
checkOrder(double[] arg, ...) into a isMonotone method. I will also create a
parallel set of checkOrder, isMonotone functions for Comparable[] arrays.
-Greg
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 9/21/11 4:33 PM,
On 9/21/11 4:33 PM, Greg Sterijevski wrote:
> Gilles,
>
> I do not understand why a non-monotone collection should throw a
> IllegalArgumentException...? There is nothing wrong with the argument, it
> just is not in corrected order. Wouldn't it be better to return a false?
I think as you guys are
Gilles,
I do not understand why a non-monotone collection should throw a
IllegalArgumentException...? There is nothing wrong with the argument, it
just is not in corrected order. Wouldn't it be better to return a false?
We have:
if (!ok && abort) {
throw new NonMonoto
The reason I am looking at checkOrder is your suggestion for
UpdatingMultipleLinearRegression, eg checking if the variables are presented
in monotonically increasing order...
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Gilles Sadowski <
gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 05:17:59
I would not want to remove the current implementation (the one with double[]
as an arg). However, I might want to check lists to make sure that they are
monotonically increasing. I want to avoid writing a checkOrder method for
int[], long[], float[],..., if it is possible. Also, one should be able
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 05:17:59PM -0500, Greg Sterijevski wrote:
> Meant to say add, not replace. My apologies. -Greg
I like this better! ;-)
[But, still, please check the intended meaning of the first argument of
(sub-classes of) "MathIllegalArgumentException".]
Gilles
Hi.
>
> In MathUtils there exists the method:
>
> public static boolean checkOrder(double[] val, OrderDirection dir,
> boolean strict, boolean abort) {
> ...code omitted...
> }
>
>
> I would like to replace it with the method:
>
> public static boo
Meant to say add, not replace. My apologies. -Greg
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Greg Sterijevski wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> In MathUtils there exists the method:
>
> public static boolean checkOrder(double[] val, OrderDirection dir,
> boolean strict, bool
Hello All,
In MathUtils there exists the method:
public static boolean checkOrder(double[] val, OrderDirection dir,
boolean strict, boolean abort) {
...code omitted...
}
I would like to replace it with the method:
public static boolean checkOrder(Co
21 matches
Mail list logo
