Mathieu Ribatet <mathieu.ribatet <at> epfl.ch> writes:
> > Ok, please consider it as a bad call. > Thanks for your answers. > Best, > Mathieu > Well, I don't think it's a _bad_ call; I think the underlying wish (more flexibility in moving between existing optimizers without changing the objective function, calls, etc.) is valid -- but can really only be achieved at this point by writing a wrapper (Optimize(), or is that too confusing?), because of backward compatibility issues. I would also like to see a more open framework in optim() [or elsewhere], where one can more easily plug in alternative optimization procedures. My version of mle (mle2, in bbmle) does something like this, but in an ad hoc way -- it can use optim, nlm, nlminb, or constrOptim as an optimization backend. (I will also take a look at Robert Gentleman's code, now ...) Ben Bolker ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel