-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 370
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update StatsBase.df to dof #1097
Conversation
We should tag a patch release once this is merged, but we'll have to cherry-pick around the nullable change. |
(cherry picked from commit e4ab277)
This is defined here for models fit on DataFrames because we wrap them in a |
@simonster Oh okay, makes sense. Thanks for the explanation! |
Yes, these should be moved to a separate package together with the model frame code. |
Maybe? From a usability perspective, it seems like it may be hard for people to figure out that to fit a GLM on a DataFrame, you need |
We could still reexport it by default. The idea is 1) to shrink the large code base of Data Frames, and 2) allow fitting models from alternative data sources (TypedTables, databases...). |
Or perhaps GLM could reexport it? |
Possibly, but that would mean adding this to every modeling package, which are more numerous than data sources. |
Ah yeah. Well, I can start the process of migration... Repo name? StatModels.jl, in keeping with the name of the file in which this stuff is defined here? That's pretty general though. |
The name needs to be general since that's a general framework. StatModels isn't bad. Though before doing that work, make sure everybody agrees with that plan by asking for comments somewhere. I think I remember some opposition. |
Oh sure, I wouldn't take anything out of here before getting comments. Also cc @johnmyleswhite. If we're going to do this I also think it would be a good time to rethink how formulas are specified. It would be nice if base Julia could stop making a special case to parse ~ as an infix macro for the sake of formulas. Doug brought up alternative syntax on the mailing list, wherein he proposed using pairs instead. Anyway, something to think about when we get there. |
Might make sense to discuss this under #1018... |
why is this even defined here