Re: inverseCumAccuracy is probably not necessary

2013-08-06 Thread Phil Steitz
On 8/6/13 3:52 PM, Ajo Fod wrote: > OK. When does it become something that can be posted as an issue? Fine by me to open an issue to add constructors that omit the parameter. If people don't like the formal parameter name and someone cares enough to make a patch changing it, that is fine by me as

Re: inverseCumAccuracy is probably not necessary

2013-08-06 Thread Ajo Fod
OK. When does it become something that can be posted as an issue? -Ajo On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 8/6/13 1:52 PM, Ajo Fod wrote: > > My question is if it is like one of those buttons on a calculator that no > > one has really ever used. > > It is used. I have used

Re: inverseCumAccuracy is probably not necessary

2013-08-06 Thread Phil Steitz
On 8/6/13 1:52 PM, Ajo Fod wrote: > My question is if it is like one of those buttons on a calculator that no > one has really ever used. It is used. I have used it myself. We need to retain it. For convenience, we can add a constructor that omits it, but allows the RandomGenerator to be provid

Re: inverseCumAccuracy is probably not necessary

2013-08-06 Thread Ajo Fod
My question is if it is like one of those buttons on a calculator that no one has really ever used. I've used the random number generator to get repetable paths, and the parameters, but never the inverseCum. So, how many people need the parameter at all? Cheers, -Ajo On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:23

Re: inverseCumAccuracy is probably not necessary

2013-08-06 Thread Paul Benedict
I wonder how many were waiting in silence to see if someone else would speak up for a rename. On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Matt Benson wrote: > Actually I think by "function name" he was referring to the unfortunate > English-language sexual innuendo incurred by the abbreviation of the word

Re: inverseCumAccuracy is probably not necessary

2013-08-06 Thread Matt Benson
Actually I think by "function name" he was referring to the unfortunate English-language sexual innuendo incurred by the abbreviation of the word "cumulative" in the method name. Matt On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 8/6/13 10:00 AM, Konstantin Berlin wrote: > > Terrible

Re: inverseCumAccuracy is probably not necessary

2013-08-06 Thread Phil Steitz
On 8/6/13 10:00 AM, Konstantin Berlin wrote: > Terrible function name also :) Can you suggest a better name for this parameter? It is meant to indicate the proscribed accuracy of the inverse cumulative probability. By "function name" I assume you are talking about the name of the constructor par

Re: inverseCumAccuracy is probably not necessary

2013-08-06 Thread Konstantin Berlin
Terrible function name also :) On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Ajo Fod wrote: > When does this become an issue? > > -Ajo > > > On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: > > > On 8/4/13 7:44 AM, Ajo Fod wrote: > > > Guys, > > > > > > What is the use of inverseCumAccuracy when people w

Re: inverseCumAccuracy is probably not necessary

2013-08-06 Thread Ajo Fod
When does this become an issue? -Ajo On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 8/4/13 7:44 AM, Ajo Fod wrote: > > Guys, > > > > What is the use of inverseCumAccuracy when people want to instantiate an > > AbstractRealDistribution with a random generator? > > org.apache.commons.ma

Re: inverseCumAccuracy is probably not necessary

2013-08-04 Thread Phil Steitz
On 8/4/13 7:44 AM, Ajo Fod wrote: > Guys, > > What is the use of inverseCumAccuracy when people want to instantiate an > AbstractRealDistribution with a random generator? > org.apache.commons.math3.distribution.AbstractRealDistribution

inverseCumAccuracy is probably not necessary

2013-08-04 Thread Ajo Fod
Guys, What is the use of inverseCumAccuracy when people want to instantiate an AbstractRealDistribution with a random generator? org.apache.commons.math3.distribution.AbstractRealDistribution