commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luc Maisonobe <>
Subject Re: [math] Generate random data using the Inverse CDF Method?
Date Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:29:12 GMT
Phil Steitz a écrit :
> Mikkel Meyer Andersen wrote:
>> Phil,
>> I understand your opinion, but I don't agree with you (but I accept
>> that you have a different meaning about things just as I expect you to
>> accept mine). I'm sure this is quite common in projects like this, and
>> are interesting in hearing how matters like this are settled? Are
>> there any committers besides you - and how many? And do you guys they

There are at least one other regular commiter and three other committers
that have been active on the list last year. Phil is clearly one of the
most involved maintainers and he has been here since the beginning.

>> have some sort of private list where you discuss this or is it totally
>> up to you to decide how this ends (maybe waiting for others on the
>> list to have their saying)? I don't mean to be rude or impolite, so
>> excuse me if I am; I just don't know how this stuff works.
> All discussion happens on the public list. Sometimes it takes a
> while for us to reach consensus and often the consensus represents a
> compromise that we did not see as a possibility at first.

There are only two lists: the users list and the developers list (here).
Both lists are archived and searchable.

> I am open
> to making it easy to provide inversion-based random data generators.
>  I just don't like your suggested implementation and package
> placement.  I proposed an alternative (a generic method added
> somewhere in the random package), which you did not like. There are
> no doubt other better ways to do this.  Perhaps others have ideas?

I have no preference on this specific topic, sorry. One important thing
to me is also to keep backward compatibility (as strange as it might
seem after the bunch of changes I introduced last summer).

Would the change imply that the random package would disappear ? In this
case I would be against it. Would that change imply that low level "raw"
generators would be in random and higher level generators in
distribution ? In this case, I don't know what is better.

One thing I would like to add at some time in the future would be better
and more modern "raw" generators in the same spirit as the Mersenne
Twister (typically I would like to add the WELL family of generators).

>From a user point of view, it is also important to be able to select a
different raw generator underlying a high level one. This is used for
example in Monte-Carlo analyses when one wants to reproduce a subset of
an already generated sequence, or according to what has higher priority,
generation speed or generation accuracy with respect to the desired


> Phil
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message