On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 00:41:33 -0400, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Phil Steitz wrote: > > Henri Yandell wrote: > > > >> Some thoughts from a general Commons perspective: > > > > > > Thanks! > > > >> > >> 1) +0, This is worth getting right early on as package renaming does > >> tend to confuse users and takes a long time to work through > >> deprecation etc. > > > > > > Ugh.. Lots of change incompatible with RC1 here...but if others agree... > > What I dont understand is why the concept of univariate vs. multivariate > > is hard to understand. Univariate - sample consists of a single array > > of data (one random variable / distribution); multivariate - sample has > > more than on column (random vector / joint distribution). > > > > > Thought about this some more and it is not worth arguing about. If it is > not clear, we should change it. If there are no objections, I will change > .univariate to .descriptive and .multivariate to .regression.
This is just a package name change right? While on paper it's a large incompatibility, in reality it's a search and replace away. It's the only issue concerning Math 1.0 that seems worth clearing up now rather than later. Not because of the code pain of an API change but because users will start wondering wtf is going on when the packages they've learn about get deprecated etc. Code is easier to change than minds :) As a stats idiot, uni/multivariate seem easier to understand, except only because I assume univariate only takes one parameter. Which seems wrong. Multivariate is also pretty empty as a package. I assume it wouldn't make sense to just have a package with some name (no idea what) and put the Regression in with the others? Just some thoughts... Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
