Phil Steitz wrote:
Frank,
After reading carefully again and thinking about some practical examples, I agree that the current framework has a fundamental and unecessary limitation. The "point mass at 0, continuous beyond 0" example below does occur in practical applications (e.g. component lifetimes, 0 = defective). As I said in a previous post, the distributions package was designed to house commonly used "parametric" distributions like the ones that are implemented now; but there is no reason that the framework could not be used to support any kind of distribution. Therefore, since the change to add a base interface is small and does not really complicate the structure or client code, I am +0 for adding it. Any other opinions on this?
+1
I agree with Frank, and think it is benifiting the design.
Kim -- http://www.kimvdlinde.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
