[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fri, 3 Feb 2006 08:56:23 -0500
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 04:20:20PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Jason Stover <address@hidden> writes:
> > I have been thinking about this. I can think of several types of
> > models, including localized regression, generalized linear models and
> > others, where the the model code needs to know about pspp via the
> > coefficients only. Classification and regression trees are the only
> > outstanding example I can think of offhand which violate this rule.
> > There are enough models like this to justify a 'statlib' directory
> > full of models of this type, which do not know about pspp, and a
> > single module available to them for coefficient data structures, which
> > know about pspp's variable and value structures.
> > Comments?
> I seem to recall that when we met at Stanford this summer, it was
> sort of a "side goal" of yours to write statistical libraries
> that were useful both inside and outside PSPP. If that's still
> the case--I do like the idea--then I'd encourage you to take a
> stab at it.
That's still the case. I have been taking a stab at it, though
not as much lately as I would like because of work.
> Is there a reason to create a separate "statlib" for statistical
> libraries? I don't know of a reason that the existing "lib"
> wouldn't do. The goal of the division of source code in PSPP
> between "lib" and "src" is just a hint that code in "lib" is not
> PSPP-specific, whereas code in "src" is.
I'm not attached to the name 'statlib' or any other specific name.
If 'lib' is meant to encompass anything that doesn't depend strictly
on PSPP, then 'lib' sounds okay.
- Re: linreg, Ben Pfaff, 2006/02/02
- Re: linreg,
Jason Stover <=