Reapply #113 and prepare release of StatsFuns 1.0.0 #142
Conversation
* Use Julia implementations for (log)pdfs. Adjust Rmath tests to use testsets to give more informative errors. * Use Julia implementations for most cdf-like functions of the Chisq distribution. * Change Beta distribution to be using native implementations. * Switch binomial cdfs to use native implementations (but not the inverses) * Use native implementations for most cdf like gamma functions * Just use the gamma defitions for the chisq * Use the beta definitions for binomial * Add native implementions for Poisson's cdf-like functions * Rely on SpecialFunctions promotion handling in beta functions * Rely on gamma_inc_inv promotion in gammainv(c)cdf * Apply suggestions from code review * Add compat for HypergeometricFunctions * Handle negative arguments in Poisson (log)(c)cdf * Handle negative x in Gamma (log)(c)cdf * Handle arguments outside support for Beta and Fdist (log)(c)cdf * Fix Fdist quantile functions * Handle arguments out of support in Binomial (log)(c)cdf and apply the floor function to make the results correct for non-integer arguments * Avoid accidental promotion to Float64 in fdist(log)(c)cdf * Fix typo in "x" calculation for fdist(log)(c)cdf * Drop redundant low tolerance tests for Beta(1000, 2). We are now generally more accurate than Rmath so failure are because of Rmath. * Handle some non-finite edge cases in gamma and binomial * Only switch to log-version of betalogcdf when the result is tiny * Handle the degenerate cases in beta(log)(c)cdf when alpha is zero * Handle the degenerate case of the gamma distribution when k==0. Also, only calculate the log(c)cdf based on the hypergeometric function when p is zero or subnormal * Address review comments * Avoid rational return type in gamma(log)(c)cdf * Handle the case when alpha and beta are zero in the betacdf
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #142 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 48.98% 56.60% +7.61%
==========================================
Files 13 13
Lines 445 530 +85
==========================================
+ Hits 218 300 +82
- Misses 227 230 +3
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
@nalimilan I did not remove the reexports for now since it seems there was no general agreement in favour of this change (at least I remember you preferred them to be kept). |
Yeah my point was that if we drop IrrationalConstants and LogExpFunctions reexports, this package only contains distributions-related functions, so it would better be renamed e.g. DistributionsFuns. Maybe at some point we could split out these functions to a new package, and StatsFuns would become a meta package and/or be deprecated. Before releasing 1.0, are we sure we are happy with all of the API? AFAICT it's been very stable so I guess it's fine? |
Yes, in my opinion it has been quite stable, I think the main consideration was just whether to drop the reexports or not. In any case, we can always move to 2.0 if something comes up that is worth changing but breaking. |
If that is our thinking then there is there is little reason to release 1.0. IMO releasing 1.0 only makes sense if we expect to commit to the API for some time. |
Well, that's my general opinion when people mention that some package should be moved to 1.0. For StatsFuns I think it's not likely that there are any breaking changes anytime soon but I don't think moving to 1.0 should mean that useful breaking changes should be discouraged completely. However, even though I'm generally a bit hesitant regarding these pushes towards 1.0, there are some advantages I think: It is possible to distinguish between bugfix and feature releases, and one can also drop older Julia versions in a non-breaking way while being able to backport fixes to older Julia versions if needed. |
|
It doesn't seem there are any problems with the API (and my request on Slack didn't prompt any comments), so I'd say it's fine to release 1.0 -- unless you think we should drop reexports. |
|
I don't mind either way, I think it's OK to keep them (for now at least). Just a final check as a follow-up to our discussion above, are you happy with the PR @andreasnoack? |
|
Yes. Let's move forward with this as it is. |
This PR is a cleaned and corrected version of #139. Copied from there: